Se dethss tached ert et rach aha 
eitatirats 

; - : Cigige se 

Hinge : : ; ; : VEE 
are ge eb rere ose ss 
oe 
ae 


hey 


* 


ie 


reptile ete 
erste eae 
toes ba ert 


eit” * 
Ae * 
% fuses Pay 


Om 
ene 

cetp 

Ot 

Cee ote 


eve 
Mig eS 


23 
eapesy 
pean ae tans 


alee! ps 


oe 


vee 


st ey 


ve 


Nasa 
Paty aa 


oS 
oe % 


. 
* 
K 


vate 


Sate ie % 


«2 a 
Cask) 
wee 


wale 
oie 


- 


Poa tae 
Sore Pee sw 


e934 4S O28 9.9 
: 
vee ee ee 


vee 
. 
. 
< 


tem mews 
* 


THE UNIVERSITY ~— 
{ 
uf OF ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY 
ae f 5 ees 


Return this book on or before the 
Latest Date stamped below. 


University of Illinois Library 


~ > 


é 7 10! 


; DEC 8 1979 
JAN 8 (gat 


| [MEET E) pec ga wh 
Mat CG EG? BE ee (Se! 


DEC 9 1987 


Peres 018 eS 
_APR 91879 JUL 2 3 1999 a 
MAY 12|'873 De clo 4 » np 


L16 Nae 


PETRARCH’S LETTERS 
TO CLASSICAL AUTHORS 


= rd 
j 76 4+~ 7 a da 


PETRARCH’S LETTERS 
TO CLASSICAL 
AUTHORS 


TRANSLATED FROM THE LATIN 
WITH A COMMENTARY 


| BY 


MARIO EMILIO COSENZA, PH.D. 


Instructor in Latin in The College of the 
City of New York 


CHICAGO 
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS 
1910 


CoPYRIGHT 1910 By 
Tue UNIveRSITY OF CHICAGO 


Published March b de} Ke) 


“a 


Composed and Printed By 
The University of Chicago Press 
Chicago, Illinois, U. S. A. 


TO MY MOTHER 
; AND 
TO MY FATHER 


{ 


4 


te ae eee sy 


2" oe ves CO 


™ 
~~ 


INTRODUCTION 
[. LETTER To M. T. CICERO 
Notes to Letter I 
II. LETTER To M. T. CICERO 
Notes to Letter IT 
III. LETTER TO ANNAEUS SENECA 
Notes to Letter III . 
IV. LETTER TO Marcus VARRO 
Notes to Letter IV 
VY. LETTER TO QUINTILIAN 
Notes to Letter V 
VI. LETTER To Titus Livy 
Notes to Letter VI 
VII. LETTER To Astnius POLLIO 
Notes to Letter VIT 
VIII. Letrer to Horatius FLaccus 
Notes to Letter VIII 
IX. LETTER To PUBLIUS VERGILIUS Maro . 
Notes to Letter IX 
X. LETTER TO HOMER . 


CONTENTS 


Notes to Letter X 


A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 


vii 


PAGE 


II2 


726 
132 


136 
141 


148 
172 


205 


INTRODUCTION 


It is hardly necessary to dwell upon Petrarch’s 
extensive correspondence. He was the leader 
of the learned men of his age; and it is common 
knowledge that all his prominent contempo- 
taries—whether in the political world, or in the 
religious world, or in the scholarly world— 
Were numbered among his friends. 

_ Corresponding so incessantly with all men 
and on all topics, Petrarch’s letters soon grew 
into an unmanageable mass. One day in 1359 
(Frac., Note to Fam., XXIV, 13) Petrarch, 
With a sigh, consigned to the flames a thousand 
Or more papers, consisting of short poems and 
Of letters, merely to avoid the irksome task of 
Sifting and of correcting them. He then noticed 
a few papers lying in a corner, which (after 
SOme hesitation) he spared because they had 
already been recopied and arranged by his 
S¢cretary (Praejatic ad Socratem, I, p. 15). 
Petrarch divided these “few”? letters into two 
groups, dedicating the twenty-four books of 
Pose epistles to Socrates (Praejatio, loc. cit., 
anid Fam., XXIV, 13), and the three books of 


| 


| 
/ 


x INTRODUCTION 


poetic epistles to Marco Barbato (Praejatzo, loc: 
cit., pp. 15, 16, and Fam., XXII, 3). 

Farther on in his prefatory letter to Socrates; 
Petrarch points out the vigor and the couragé 
to be seen in his earlier letters, and advance3 
extenuating circumstances for the laments which 
begin to crop out in the later ones. He excuseS 
these by arguing that they were occasioned by 
the misfortunes which befell his friends, and nct 
by those which he had suffered in his own per- 
son. At this point Petrarch does not lose the 
opportunity for comparing himself with Cicero- 
The passage gives so completely the information 
needed by the reader that it is hereby trans- 
lated in full (Praejatio, I, p. 25): ! 

Cicero, however, exhibits such weakness in his ad- 
versity that, although I am delighted with his style, I 
am oftentimes equally offended by his actions. Add to 
this his quarrelsome letters—the altercations and t¢ 
reproachful language which he employs against the mest 
illustrious men whom he has but recently been praisin's. 
It all reveals a remarkable fickleness of disposition. (2 
reading these letters, I was soothed and ruffled at ‘he 
same time. I could not restrain myself, and, indignatij92 
prompting me, I wrote to him as to a friend of my oy 
years and time, regardless of the ages which separa/ed 
us. Indeed, I wrote with a familiarity acquired throyigh 
an intimate knowledge of the works of his genius, nd 


I pointed out to him what it was that offended me a his 


INTRODUCTION xl 


writings. This letter served as a precedent. Years later, 
on re-reading the tragedy entitled Octavia, the memory 
of the letter which I had addressed to Cicero prompted 
me to write to Seneca also. Thereafter, and as occasion 
offered, I addressed letters to Varro, Vergil, and others. 

ome of these I have placed at the end of this work, and I 
hereby forewarn the reader of this fact, lest he should 
be perplexed at coming upon them unawares. The rest 
perished in that general holocaust of which I have told 
yu above. 

In the last letter of the collection De rebus 
jamiliaribus (XXIV, 13, likewise addressed 
to. Socrates, and dated 1361), Petrarch refers 
again to the grouping together of the letters to 


the classical authors. He says (III, pp. 305, 
301): 

In ordering these letters, I have been guided entirely 
by their chronology, and not by their contents. [But 
compare Frac., 5, p. 201, on the matter of the chronology.] 
Nearly all of them have been arranged in the order in 
which they were written, with the exception, indeed, of 
these last letters addressed to the illustrious authors of 
antiquity. These I have purposely gathered together - 
on account of their strange character and the similarity 
of their subject-matter. A second exception must be 
made in the case of the first letter, which, though written 
later, I have placed at the head of her companions to 
serve as a preface [a reference to the Praefatio, I, pp. 


13-27]. 


} 


xii INTRODUCTION 


The material embraced in these pages has 
been partly treated in English and to a greater 
extent in French (by Robinson and Rolfe, and 
by Develay; see Bibliography). In both cases, 
however, the letters chosen have been merely 
translated, with only the barest attempt at 
annotating. Even the notes of the Italian 
translation by Fracassetti are only such as per- 
tain to the life of Petrarch and to those of his 
correspondents. 

Thus much concerning the history of tie 
text proper. The notes have been made as 
detailed as seemed necessary and consistent 
with the character of the work. Some of the 
quotations from the original sources, or from 
translations, may appear somewhat lengt hy 
at first glance. In all instances, however) it 
has been deemed quite essential to reprodiice 
in the mind of the reader the conditions and ‘he 
attitude of Petrarch’s mind. Only in this way 
do many brief expressions and pregnant ailu- 
sions of Petrarch become perfectly clear. | 

It is a privilege and a pleasure to acknowledge 
my great indebtedness to two authors in par- 
ticular, without whose labors the present study 
would have been impossible, or, at any «ate, 
vastly more difficult: Giuseppe Fracassetti 


{ 
} 


\ 


| 


, 


INTRODUCTION xill 


t and Pierre de Nolhac. The Latin edition and 
the complete Italian translation of Petrarch’s 
letters De rebus familiaribus (both by Fracas- 
setti) have been absolutely indispensable; while 
P| de Nolhac’s fascinating work has provided 
all) the minute details concerning the actual 
composition and appearance of the tomes which 
once formed part of Petrarch’s library. 

All quotations from the letters are made from 
the Latin text and from the Italian version as 
Walked by Fracassetti. The volumes of 
the former are referred to by Roman numerals, 
those of the latter by Arabic numerals. Pas- 
sages from other works of Petrarch are cited 
from the Basle edition of the Opera omnia, 
except the De remedus utriusque jortunae, for 
which the 1649 edition has been used. All other 
titles have been abbreviated in such manner 
as ‘to be readily identified by consulting the 
Bibliography. ‘The texts used in referring to 
the works of the classical authors themselves 
are (except when otherwise indicated) those of 
the ‘Teubner series. 

The number of persons interested in the 
absorbing period of the Italian Renaissance is 
increasing daily. The present study deals with 
only one phase of that truly wonderful period— 


é 


Xiv INTRODUCTION | 


with the beginnings of the Classical Rene. 
But the personality of him who has justly been 
styled the “first modern man” is so complex, 
so comprehensive, that the study of any portion 
of his works would seem to interest not only 
the classical scholar, but also the student of the 
modern literatures, the student of Italian litera- 
ture, the historian, and, finally, the large nuin- 
ber of those who range themselves in the ranks 
of the Petrarchists. It is hoped that this study 
may make some appeal to one or to all of these 
classes. | 

The field of research on the Latin works) of 
Petrarch is so fruitful that, during the prepara- 
tion of the present volume, numerous notes 
have been taken with reference to Petrarch’s 
place in politics and in religion. It is the ear rest 
hope of the author, therefore, to pursue his 
researches along these lines, and to add othe: 
volumes to this preliminary study. 


a a 
) 
7 eae Pa 
7 


LE LOshi ba CICERO 
| (Fam., XXIV, 3) 


I have read thy letters through to the end 
most eagerly—letters for which I had diligently 
searched far and wide, and which I finally 
came upon where I least expected. I have 
bear thee speak on many subjects, give voice 
to many laments, and waver frequently in thy 
opinions, O Marcus Tullius. Hitherto I knew 
what true counsel thou gavest to others; now, 
at ei I have learned to what degree thou didst 
prove mentor to thyself.* 

Wherever thou mayest be, hearken in turn to 
this—I shall not call it advice—but lament, a 
lament springing from sincere love and uttered, 
not without tears, by one of thy descendants who 
most clearly cherishes thy name. O thou ever 
restless and distressed spirit, or, that thou mayest 
recogriize thine own words, O thou rash and un- 
forturiate old man!? Why such countless enmities 
and rivalries bound to prove of absolutely no 
benefit to thee ? Wherefore didst thou forsake 
that peaceful ease so befitting a man of thy 
years, and of thy vocation, and of thy station in 


I 


j 
2 PETRARCH’S LETTERS | 


| 


life ??, What false luster of glory involved thee, 
although weighed down with years, in the 
wrangles and frays proper to youths and, 
driving thee hither and thither through all the 
vicissitudes of fortune, hurried thee to an end 
unworthy of a philosopher? Alas, | forgetful 
of the admonitions of thy brother,‘ forge:ful 
of thy own numerous and wholesome precejgts, 
like a traveler in the night didst thou bear|the 
light in the darkness, and didst enlighten) for 
those following thee the path on which thou 
thyself didst stumble most wretchedly.5 

I forbear to speak of Dionysius; I shall make 
no mention of thy brother, nor of thy nephew, 
and, if it pleases thee, I shall pass over Tyola- 
bella too—men whom thou dost praise tc: the 
skies at one moment, and the next dost rail at 
in sudden wrath. Such examples of thy incon- 
stancy may, perhaps, be excused.° I omit men- 
tion of Julius Caesar, even, whose oft-tested 
mercy proved a haven of refuge for those very 
persons who had assailed him. I shall say 
naught of the great Pompey, with whom it 
seemed that thou couldst accomplish anything 
thou didst set thy heart upon, such was the 
friendship between you. But what madness 
arrayed thee against Antony? Love for the 


On Mie CICER © 3 


Republic, I suppose thou wouldst answer. 
But (as thou thyself didst assert) the Republic 
ha¢ already been destroyed root and branch.’ 
If, owever, it was pure loyalty, if it was love 
of liberty that impelled thee (and we are justi- 
fied in thinking thus of so great a man as thou), 
what meant such intimacy with Augustus? 
Indeed, what possible answer canst thou give 
to thy Brutus? “If,” says he, “thou dost 
embrace the cause of Octavius, the evident 
conclusion will be, not that thou hast rid thyself 
of a master, but rather that thou hast sought 
a kindlier lord.’’® 

There still remained this lamentable, finishing 
stoke O Cicero, that thou shouldst speak ill 
of thet very man, notwithstanding thy previous 
high praise. And on what grounds? Not 
because he was doing thee any wrong, but 
merely because he did not oppose those who 
We 2. 

I grieve at thy lot, my friend; I am ashamed 
of thy many, great shortcomings, and take 
compassion on them. And so, even as did 
Brutus, I attach no importance to that knowl- 
edge with which I know that thou wert so 
thoroughly imbued.® Forsooth, what boots 
it to instruct others, of what profit to discourse 


4 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


eternally on the virtues, and that too in most 
eloquent terms, if, at the same time, one tums 
a deaf ear to his own instructions? Ah, how 
much better had it been for a man of declining 
years, and especially for one devoted to studies, 
even as thou, to have lived his last days in the 
quiet of the country, meditating (as thou thy- 
self hast said somewhere) on that everlasting 
life, and not on this fleeting one.*°. How much 
better had it been never to have held offce, 
never to have longed for triumphs,** never to 
have vaunted of crushing such men as Cati- 
line. But ’tis vain indeed to talk thus. Fare- 
well forever, my Cicero. 


Writien in the land of the living, on the right bank of 
the river Adige, in Verona, a city of Transpadane italy. 
on the sixteenth day before the Kalends of Quintilis {June 
16), in the thirteen hundred and forty-fifth year Jrqm the 
birth of that God whom thou never knewest. / 


| 


NOTES ON Fam., XXIV, 3, TO CICERO 


t. In 1345 Petrarch discovered in the Cathe- 
dral Library of Verona a manuscript containing 
the sixteen books of Cicero’s letters ad Alticum, 
the three books ad Quintum, the two ad Brutum, 
and the apocryphal letter to Octavianus. It 
has been proved that he did not discover the 
ad Familiares, an honor which belongs, to 
Coluccio Salutati (P. de Nolhac, I, pp. 222, 
255). 

We can readily imagine Petrarch’s eagerness 
to possess a copy of the precious manuscript. 
Owing, however, to the lack of intelligent copy- 
ists, or perhaps because copyists were not ad- 
_ mitted into the Chapter Library, Petrarch was 
obliged to transcribe the large volume himself, 
in spite of his physical debility at the time. 
_ This volume later injured Petrarch in a peculiar 
way, and it is interesting to hear the story from 
his own lips. In Fam., XXI, 10, dated October 
I5, 1358 or 1359, he says (Vol. III, pp. 87, 88): 

_ But to return to Cicero, of whom I had begun to speak. 
' You know that from early boyhood Cicero has always 


been dear to me, and that I have always treated him 
well. Now listen to what a shabby trick he has recently 


5 


6 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


played me. I possess a large volume of his letters, which 
I copied years ago with my own hand because the original 
was unintelligible to the copyists. I was very low in 
health at the time; but my great love for the author, 
the pleasure I took in reading his work, and my great 
eagerness to possess a copy proved superior to my 
physical infirmities and to the arduous task of transcrip- 
tion. That this volume may always be at hand, I am 
wont to keep it at the door of my library leaning against 
the door-post, where you have often seen it. The other 
day, while entering the room with my mind occupied on 
other matters (as is customary with me), it happened 
that the fringe of my gown became caught in the book. 
In falling, the volume struck my left leg just a little above 
the ankle. It wasa very slight blow. And I, addressing 
it playfully, said: ‘‘What is the matter, my Cicero, why 
do you injure me?” Of course there was no answer. 
The next day as I passed the same spot, it again struck 
me, and again I returned it to its place jestingly. To 
cut a long story short, after being struck a third and a 
fourth time, I at last bestirred myself, and supposing that 
Cicero could ill brook being kept:on the floor, I raised 
him to a higher station. By this time the skin above 
my ankle had been cut open by the frequent repetition 
of blows on the same spot, and an irritation had set in that 
was by no means to be despised. And yet I did despise it, 
thinking of the cause of the injury rather than of the injury 
itself. Consequently I abstained neither from bathing nor 
riding about, nor enjoying long walks, supposing that 
the wound would heal of itself in time. Gradually the 
injured spot began to swell, seeming offended at having 
been thus neglected; and then the flesh about it became 


TO M. T. CICERO 7 


discolored as if poisoned. Finally, when the pain had 
put an end, not only to my jesting, but also to my sleep 
and rest, I was forced to call in the doctors. Further 
neglect would have been madness, not bravery. It is 
now many days that they have been attending to my 
wound, which is no longer a laughing matter. Nor is 
their treatment without pain, and they say there is danger 
of my losing the use of the injured limb. I believe you 
know well enough what little faith I place in their state- 
ments one way or the other. And yet, I am weighed 
down with warm poultices, I am forbidden my usual 
food, and am constrained to an inactivity to which I am 
quite unaccustomed. I have grown to hate everything, 
and am particularly vexed at this, that I am compelled 
- to eat dinners that are fit only for gourmands. Still, I 
am now on my way to recovery, so that you too will have 
learned of my convalescence before you had any knowl- 
edge of my accident. 


This letter portrays Petrarch’s love for Cicero , 
so clearly, and gives us so vivid a picture of the 
human side of our author, that we cannot resist 
the temptation to quote from another letter 
written about a year later, which completes 
the story of the offending volume. He writes 
to Boccaccio (Var., 25, Milan, August 18, 
1360): 

I greatly enjoyed the next portion of your letter, where 
you say that I was undeservedly injured by Cicero because 


(as you very neatly put it) of my too great familiarity 
with him. You are right: those with whom we live on 


8 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


the most intimate terms are the ones who most often 
molest us. It is a most rare and unusual thing indeed 
for a Hindoo to offend a Spaniard. And so it goes. 
Whence it happens that we are not surprised when we 
read of the wars of the Athenians against the Spartans, 
and when we witness our own wars against our neighbors. 
Much less do we marvel at civil wars and internal dis- 
sensions. Indeed, experience has made these so much 
a matter of course that it is peace and harmony rather 
that have become a source of wonder. If, on the other 
hand, we read of a Scythian king waging war with the 
monarchs of Egypt, or of Alexander the Macedon fight- 
ing his way into the heart of India, we are overcome by 
amazement, which ceases the moment we recollect the 
examples offered by our own history and recall the 
glorious and valorous expeditions of the Romans into 
the most distant lands. Your arguments proved to be 
of consolation to me, in so far as I was hurt by Cicero, 
with whom I most ardently desire to live on intimate 
terms. But I hope that I shall never be injured either 
by Hippocrates or by Albumazar. 

But to be serious, you must know that that wound 
which was caused by Cicero and of which I had begun 
to jest, soon turned my sport to grief. Almost a year 
slipped by, and the condition of the wound was still 
going from bad to worse, while I was growing gray in 
the midst of pain and discomforts, doctors and poultices. 
Finally, when my restlessness had become intolerable 
and I had become tired of life, I resolved to dismiss the 
doctors and to await the outcome, no matter what it was, 
preferring to entrust myself to God and to nature rather 
than to those white-washers who were experimenting 


TO M. T. CICERO 9 


the tricks of their trade to my detriment. And I lived 
up to my resolution. I showed them the door, and 
placed full reliance in the aid of the Divine Preserver. 
The youth who waits upon me, thanks to my wound and 
at my expense, turned doctor. And I, remembering 
which of the many remedies had been of real benefit to 
me, made use of those only. To help nature I was 
careful of my diet; and so very, very gradually I am 
regaining the health which I lost in such short order. 
Now you have the story complete. Let me add one 
word more, that this life is an arena for toils and griefs 
in which I have often combated against strange mishaps, 
strange not in themselves, but in that they should have 
fallen to my lot. No one, I assure you, seeks peace 
more than I; no one shuns such encounters more readily 
- than I; and never have I, hitherto, suffered such a 
strange calamity, whether you consider its peculiar cause, 
or the pain which resulted therefrom, or its long con- 
tinuance. My Cicero wished to leave upon my memory 
an imperishable and lasting impression. I always 
should have remembered him, I vow; but lest I might 
possibly forget him, Cicero has now taken due precautions 
—both internal and external. And here again, what 
do you wish me to say? ‘To repeat, I now perceive that 
life is in itself a serious work. 


So much for the tome itself; now as to the 
inspiration received from its contents. ‘The 
present letter to Cicero bears the date Verona, 
June 16, 1345. Hence it is clear that before 
leaving the city in which he had made the dis- 


Ke) PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


covery, Petrarch had been prompted to address 
this letter to his favorite author. In fact we have 
his own testimony to this effect (see Introduc- 
tion). Both this letter to Cicero and the follow- 
ing (Fam., XXIV, 4) are mentioned again in 
Fam., XXIV, 2, dated May 13, 1351. Petrarch 
here records for Pulice di Vicenza the various 
details of a heated discussion they had had with 
an old gentleman who was an idolatrous wor- 
shiper of Cicero. ‘The story runs that Petrarch 
had chanced to refer to the inconstancy of 
Cicero, bringing utter dismay to his astonished 
opponents. Hecontinues (Vol. III, pp. 258 ff.): 


The situation demanded that I draw forth from my 
traveling-case the volume containing my correspondence. 
But this only heaped coals upon the fire. For, among the 
numerous letters to my contemporaries, there are a few 
which, for the sake of variety, I have addressed to the 
more distinguished characters of antiquity—a pleasant 
diversion, so to speak, from my wonted labors. The 
reader, if not forewarned, would be greatly astonished at 
finding such illustrious and ancient names mingled with 
those of today. ‘Two of these letters are to Cicero him- 
self; one of them censures his life, the second praises his 
genius. After you had read them to the attentive gather- 
ing, the friendly discussion was renewed with spirit. 
My writings found favor with some, who acknowledged 
that Cicero had been criticized justly. That venerable 
gentleman alone fought on and on with ever-increasing 


TO M. T. CICERO II 


obstinacy. Being held captive by the splendor of the 
name and his love for the author, he preferred to laud 
even the shortcomings of Cicero, and to accept the vices 
of his friend together with his virtues. He did not wish 
to make any discrimination, lest he might seem to cast 
even the slightest aspersions on so praiseworthy an author. 
He could make no other answer to me and the rest, except 
to oppose to all our arguments the mere splendor of 
Cicero’s name. Authority had driven out reason. 
Stretching out his hand, he exclaimed time and again: 
‘Have mercy on my Cicero, I beg of you; be more merci- 
ful.” And when asked whether Cicero could be said to 
have erred at all, he closed his eyes as if struck by the 
word, and turning away his face groaned: ‘‘Woe is me! 
And is it my Cicero who is thus reproved ?” as if he were 
speaking, not of a mortal but of some deity. Hence we 
asked of him whether he judged Tullius a man or a god. 
Instantly came the reply: ‘‘A god.” ... . After long 
discussion, and at a late hour, we arose and departed, 
leaving the issue still undecided. But the last thing 
before separating for the evening, you exacted from me 
the promise to send to you a copy of those two letters 
the moment I should arrive at a more fixed abode—for 
there was no time that day..... I hereby send them 
to you. 


2. Unfortunately for the commentator, Pe- 
trarch considered as authentic the letter ad 
Octavianum, which was included in the manu- 
script he discovered at Verona (seen. 1). The 
letter is now generally considered apocryphal. 


12 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


In sec. 6 occurs the phrase referred to by Pe- 
trarch: ‘‘O meam calamitosam ac praecipitem 
senectutem !”’ 

3. Rer. mem., i, 1, p. 393, ‘‘De ocio,”’ has the 
following paragraph on Cicero: 


But I am done with leaders in war. I shall now speak 
of M. Tullius Cicero. After countless hardships suffered 
in the course of his career, after such numerous dangers 
incurred during that most stormy consulship and in his 
immortal fight against unprincipled men, when the liberty 
of his fellow-citizens had at last been destroyed, Cicero 
escaped as if from a sinking ship, and, stripped of all his 
honors, retired into a life of seclusion. And now, in 
roving about from one country home to another, as he 
himself says (De off., iii, 1, 1), he found himself alone 
quite frequently. But what activity in public life, I ask, 
was comparable to his leisure? What crowded assem- 
blies to his isolation? Although Cicero may be par- 
doned for weeping bitterly over the fate of his fatherland, 
still from out of that solitude there spread abroad to all 
nations monumental products of his divine genius. 
Indeed, as Cicero himself says (De off., iii, 1, 4), more 
works were struck off in that brief period than in the 
many years while the Republic was still standing. But 
his powers did not avail him in warding off his destiny. 
He was safe in the midst of dangers; but when at last 
in the haven he suffered shipwreck. 


(Consult the notes of H. A. Holden, in his 
edition of the De offictis.) 
4. This story is given more fully in Rer. 


TO M. T. CICERO 13 


mem., ill, 3, p. 440, ‘‘De sapienter dictis vel 
factis, Q. Cicero”’: 


The following proves clearly how much easier it is 
for a man to give good advice to others than to himself. 
Quintus Cicero once offered advice to Marcus Cicero, 
his brother, and if Marcus had accepted it, he would 
perhaps have died in his own bed, and his body might 
have been laid to rest unmutilated. The advice was that 
Marcus should consider carefully the wretched end of 
his illustrious contemporaries, and should examine closely 
the dangers by which he himself was beset; after which 
he should beware of becoming involved in strifes and 
conflicts which could bring no relief to the State, but 
which would, in the end, bring destruction upon him. 
Most prudent counsel indeed! For what is more fatuous 
than to become entangled in unending quarrels, especially 
when one already despairs of attaining the desired goal ? 
Tullius himself somewhere admits that this brotherly 
advice was both sensible and wise. But we all know how 
wisely he followed it! Perchance it was the force of 
destiny which urged him on—a compelling force which 
I know not whether it was possible-to resist. At any 
rate, such resistance must have proved very difficult. 
And this fact is impressed upon my mind by the subject 
of the following sketch. 


5. Dante, Purg., XXII, 64-70 (tr. by Long- 
fellow): 


And he to him: ‘‘Thou first directedst me 
Towards Parnassus, in its grots to drink, 
And first concerning God didst me enlighten. 


14 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


Thou didst as he who walketh in the night, 

Who bears his light behind, which helps him not, 
But wary makes the persons after him, 

When thou didst say,” .... 


6. In Fam., XXIV, 2 (a letter from which we 
have already quoted in n. 1) there are some 


passages fairly parallel to this one. The first 
is (Vol. III, p. 258): 


You may remember that Cicero’s name chanced to 
be mentioned among us, as so often happens among 
learned men. This put a stop to the desultory con- 
versation in which we had been engaged up to that time. 
We all became engrossed with this one topic, and nothing 
else but Cicero was talked of thereafter. We gathered 
round and each in turn sang the praises of Cicero as 
seemed best to him. But nothing in this world is per- 
fect (as everyone knows), and there is no one in whom 
even a gentle critic cannot find just cause for censure. 
And so it happened that though nearly everything pleases 
me in Cicero—a man whom I cherish beyond all my 
other friends—and though I expressed admiration for 
his golden eloquence and divine intellect, I could not 
praise the fickleness of his character and his inconstancy, 
which I had detected in many instances. 


And again, at the end of the same letter (Vol. 
III, p. 261), Petrarch says: 
As regards Cicero, I have known him as the best of 


consuls, vigilantly providing for the welfare of the State, 
and as a citizen who always evinced the highest love of 


TO M. T. CICERO T5 


country. But what more? I cannot bestow praise upon 
the instability of his friendships, nor upon the serious 
disagreements arising from slight causes and bringing 
destruction upon him and benefit to none, nor upon a 
judgment which, when brought to bear upon questions of 
private and public affairs, did not well accord with his 
remarkable acumen in other directions. Above all, I 
cannot praise, in a philosopher weighed down with years, 
an inclination for wrangling which is proper to youths 
and utterly of no avail. Of all this, however, remember 
that neither you nor anyone else can be in a fit position 
to judge, until you will have read, and carefully, all the 
letters of Cicero; for it is these which gave rise to the 
whole discussion. 


7. Petrarch has here paraphrased the words 
of Cicero, who employs such expressions as 
‘‘maximo in discrimine res publica versatur”’ 
(ad Br., 1, 12, 1); ‘‘ferre praesidium labenti et 
inclinatae paene rei publicae”’ (of. cét., i, 18, 2); 
“res existimabatur in extremum adducta dis- 
crimen”’ (zb7d., li, I, 1, and li, 2, 2); ‘‘desperatam 
et afflictam rem publicam”’ (pseudo-Cic., ad 
Octavianum, 4); and “mortua re publica” 
(ibid., 7). 

8. Cic., ad Brutum, i, 16 (written by Brutus 
at Athens, May, 43 B.c.): 

I have read an extract (sent to me by Atticus) of the 


letter which you wrote to Octavius..... I am most 
deeply afflicted by that portion of your letter to Octavius 


16 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


which concerns us. You give him thanks for the welfare 
of the State, and—what shall I say? The conditions 
imposed by my present lot bring shame upon me, but 
still the words must be written—you suppliantly and 
submissively commend our safety to his mercy..... 
For my part I do not believe that all the gods have aban- 
doned their protection of the Roman people to such an 
extent that Octavius is to be implored for the safety of 
any citizen whatsoever, much less, then, for that of the 
liberators of the entire world..... And can you, 
Cicero, who confess that Octavius has this power, can you 
still remain his friend? .... For if you are pleased 
with Octavius, of whom our safety is to be implored, 
you will seem, not to have rid yourself of a master, but 
rather to have sought a kindlier lord. 

g. Cic., ad Brutum, i, 17, 5 (Brutus to Atticus, 
43 B.c.): ‘I, in truth, attach no importance 
to that knowledge with which I know that Cicero 
was so thoroughly imbued. For what profited 
him to discourse, and at such great length, on 
his country’s freedom, on dignity, on death, 
on exile, and on poverty ?” 

to. The reference is very indefinite: 
tranquillo rure senuisse, de perpetua illa, ut 
ipse quodam loco ais, non de hac iam exigua 
vita cogitantem”’ (Vol. III, p. 263). The pas- 
sages which Petrarch had in mind may have 
been De sen., 49: “Tf, however, we have 
something that may serve as food (so to speak) ° 


‘in 


TOUM E. CICERO 17 


for study and learning, there is nothing more 
pleasant than a leisurely old age;” and 51: 
‘“‘T come now to the pleasures of a country life, 
with which I am infinitely delighted. None 
of these finds an obstruction in old age, and 
they are pleasures which appear to me to be 
most nearly suited to the life of a philosopher.”’ 
These two passages affirm that the sage should 
live a leisurely and studious old age in the coun- 
try. As to meditating on the eternal life, 
Petrarch may have been thinking of Acad. 
PA aeatb eee 

By no means, however, do I hold that the studies of 
the natural philosophers should be excluded. Indeed, 
a consideration and contemplation of nature constitutes 
the natural food (so to speak) for our minds and talents. 
We are elevated thereby, and we seem to rise to a higher 
state of being. We disdain human affairs; and, in 
meditating on the higher and heavenly things, we scorn 
earthly matters as being small and insignificant—‘‘cogi- 
tantesque supera atque caelestia haec nostra ut exigua 
et minima contemnimus.”’ 


There is a marked similarity between the 
two passages, both in the thought and the word- 
ing. As to the latter we must remember that 
Petrarch was quoting from memory and not 
from an open book, an inference which (we 
believe) may be justly drawn from his ‘‘ut ipse 


18 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


quodam loco ais.” It is needless to add that 
the similarity of the two passages lies only in 
the letter, and that the spirit of Cicero’s words 
was thoroughly pagan. With Petrarch, in 
this instance, the wish was father to the thought. 
Still he could not deceive himself on this point, 
as is evidenced by the dating of this letter. 
Elsewhere, too, he expresses his sincere regret, 
and regards Cicero as a potential Christian, if 
we may use the phrase. In a letter written to 
Neri Morando and dated October 15, 1358 
or 1359, Petrarch is full and explicit. He says 
(Fam., XXI, 10, Vol. III, pp. 85-87): 


I am living in the country not far from the banks of 
the Adda. I know that I am not more solicitous of 
your welfare than you of mine. I suppose, therefore, 
you will be astonished at hearing how I am spending 
my time. You are well aware that from early boyhood 
of all the writers of all ages and of all races the one author 
whom I most admire and love is Cicero. You agree 
with me in this respect as well as in so many others. I 
am not afraid of being considered a poor Christian by 
declaring myself so much of a Ciceronian. To my 
knowledge, Cicero never wrote one word that would 
conflict with the principles proclaimed by Christ. If, 
perchance, his works contained anything contrary to 
Christ’s doctrine, that one fact would be sufficient to 
destroy my belief in Cicero, and in Aristotle, too, and 
in Plato. For how could I place faith in man, I who 


TO? M..T. CICERO TQ 


should believe not even an angel, relying on the words 
of the Apostle who says, in the Epistle to the Galatians 
(1:8): ‘‘But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach 
any other gospel unto you than that which we have 
preached unto you, let him be accursed.” But to return 
to Cicero. He frequently makes mention of the gods, 
following, of course, the custom of his times. He 
devotes an entire volume, it is true, to a discussion of 
the nature of the gods. If you read beneath the surface, 
however, you will be convinced that he does not so much 
pay honor to this throng of gods with their empty names, 
but rather exposes them to ridicule. Where he seriously 
expresses his own opinion Cicero asserts that there is 
but one God, and that He is the Prince and Ruler of the 
universe. I have often pointed out, both in speech and 
in writing, that in this respect Cicero was fully aware 
of the danger attending his statement of the truth. And 
yet, somewhere, he has clearly stated that it is not befitting 
a philosopher to say that there are many gods. Who, 
therefore, will declare Cicero hostile to the true faith, or 
who, because of his crass ignorance of the facts, will 
cast upon Cicero the opprobrium of stranger and enemy ? 
Christ is my God; Cicero, on the other hand, is the prince 
of the language I use. I grant you that these ideas are 
widely separated, but I deny that they are at conflict 
one with the other. Christ is the Word, and the Virtue, 
and the Wisdom of God the Father. Cicero has written 
much on the speech of men, on the virtues of men, and 
on the wisdom of men—statements that are true and 
therefore surely acceptable to the God of truth. For 
since God is the living Truth, and since, as St. Augustine 
says, all truth proceeds from Him who is the Truth, then 


20 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


surely whatever truth is spoken proceeds from God. 
I should desire to emphasize the fact that Cicero could 
not have known Christ, having been called from this 
world shortly before Christ God became man. Oh, 
lamentable lot! For, considering his noble and almost 
divine intellect, if Cicero had seen Christ or had merely 
heard of His name, not only (in my opinion) would he 
have embraced the faith, but, with his incomparable 
eloquence, would most ably have spread the teachings 
of Christ. 


TI. Cics, ad Ail vil02):0 (501BaO. 

Indeed, I never cherished the slightest desire for a 
triumph till I saw that Bibulus’ most shameless letters 
succeeded in winning for him the decree of a thanks- 
giving. If he had really performed the deeds he wrote 
of in his letters, I should rejoice and be favorably dis- 
posed to the honor decreed him. But that honors should 
be showered upon him, who never advanced one step 
beyond the gate so long as the enemy remained on this 
side of the Euphrates, and that I, in whose forces lay 
all the hope of his army, should be denied the same 
honors, is an insult to both of us, to both, I say, including 
you too in my disgrace. Therefore I shall leave no 
stone unturned, and, I hope, success will crown my 
efforts. 


fi Oe Mate CLEERO 
(Fam., XXIV, 4) - 


I fear that my last letter has offended thee; 
for thou thyself art wont to designate as just the 
adage of thy friend in his Andria,* ‘‘ Homage 
begets friends; truth, enemies.” If my fear 
prove true, then accept what may in some degree 
soothe thy injured feelings. Let not the truth be 
a source of ill humor in every and all instances, 
I beg of thee. Men, I know, are wont to be 
angered at justifiable censure, and to rejoice 
in merited praise. Thou, indeed, O Cicero 
(speaking with thy leave), didst live as a man, 
didst speak as an orator, didst write as a philoso- 
pher. ‘ It was thy life that I found fault with, 
not thy intellectual powers, nor yet thy command 
of language. Indeed, I admire the former, 
and am amazed at the latter. And, moreover, 
in thy life I feel the lack of nothing except the 
element of constancy, and a desire for peace 
that was to have been expected of a philosopher.) — 
I look in vain for a deep-rooted antipathy to 
civil dissensions, to strifes utterly of no avail, 
considering that liberty had been crushed and 


21 


22 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


that the Republic had already been mourned 
as dead. 

Mark how different is my attitude toward 
thee from thine toward Epicurus on so many 
occasions, but especially in the De finibus. 
Whenever thou wert so inclined, thou didst 
praise his life and ridicule his intellect.* In 
thee I ridicule nothing. I take compassion, 
however, on the life thou didst lead; while, 
as I have already stated, I rejoice in thy mental 
abilities and in thy powers of expression. “ O 
thou great father of Roman eloquence!* » Not 
only I, but all who take delight in the elegance 
of the Latin tongue render thee great thanks. 
Thou art the fountain-head from which we 

\draw the vivifying waters for our meadows. 

(We frankly confess that we have been guided 
by thee, assisted by thy judgments, enlightened 
by thy radiance; and, finally, that it was under 
thy auspices, so to speak, that I have gained 
this ability as a writer (such as it is), and that 
I have attained my purpose, 

For the realms of poetry, however, there was 
at hand a second guide. The nature of the 
case demanded that there should be two leaders 
—one whom I might follow in the unencumbered 
ways of prose, and the other in the more re- 


TO M. T. CICERO 23 


stricted paths of poetry. It was necessary that 
there should be two men whom I should admire, 
respectively, for their eloquence and their song. 
This had needs be so. For—and I beg the 
kind indulgence of you both for speaking thus 
boldly—neither of you could serve both pur- 
poses; he could not rival thee in thy chosen 
field, whereas thou couldst not adapt thyself 
to his measured flow. I would not, indeed, have 
ventured to be the first to pass such criticism, 
even though I clearly perceived it to be true. It 
has already been passed before me—or, per- 
adventure, it may have been quoted from 
another writer—by that great Annaeus Seneca 
of Cordova,* who, as he himself complains, 
was prevented from becoming acquainted with 
thee, not by any lapse of years, but by the fury 
of civil warfare.>5 He might have seen thee, 
but did not; withal, he was a constant admirer 
and worshiper both of thy works and of those 
of that other. Seneca, therefore, marks out 
the boundaries of your respective spheres, and 
enjoins upon each to yield to his coworker in 
the other field. 

But I am keeping thee in suspense too long. 
Dost thou ask who that other guide is? Thou 
wilt know the man at once, if thou art merely 


24 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


reminded of his name. It is Publius Vergilius 
Maro, a citizen of Mantua, of whom thou didst 
prophesy such great things. For we have read 
that when thou, then advanced in years, hadst 
admired some youthful effort of his, thou didst 
inquire its author’s name, and that, having seen 
the young man, thou didst express thy great 
delight. And then, drawing on thy unexhausted 
fount of eloquence, thou didst pronounce upon 
him a judgment which, though mingled with 
self-praise, was nevertheless both honorable 
and splendid for him: (‘‘Rome’s other hope and 
stay.”°’) This sentence, which he thus heard 
fall from thy lips, pleased the youth to such a 
degree, and was so jealously treasured in his 
mind, that twenty years later, when thou hadst 
long since ended this earthly career, he inserted 
it word for word into his divine poem. And if 
it had been thy lot to see this work, thou wouldst 
have rejoiced that from the first blossom thou 
hadst made such accurate prediction of future 
success. Thou wouldst, moreover, have con- 
gratulated the Latin Muses, either for leaving 
but a doubtful superiority to the arrogant Greek 
Muses, or else for winning over them a decisive 
victory. ‘There are defenders for both these 
opinions, I grant thee. And yet, if I have 


TO M. T. CICERO 25 


come to know thee from thy works—and I 
feel that I know thee as intimately as if I had 
always lived with thee—I should say that thou 
wouldst have been a stern defender of the latter 
view, and that, just as thou hadst already 
granted to Latium the palm in oratory,’ thou 
wouldst have done likewise in the case of poetry. 
I do not doubt, moreover, that thou wouldst 
have pronounced the Aeneid superior to the 
Iliad—an assertion which Propertius did not 
fear to make from the very beginning of Vergil’s 
labors. For when he had meditated upon the 
opening lines of the inspired poem, he freely 
gave utterance to the feelings and hopes aroused 
by it in these verses: 


“ Yield then, ye bards of Greece, ye Romans yield, 
A mightier yet than Homer takes the field.® 


Thus much concerning my second guide for 
Latin eloquence, thus much concerning Rome’s 
other hope and stay. I come back to thee now. 
Thou hast already heard from me my opinions 
on thy life and on thy genius. Art thou 
desirous now of learning what lot befell thy 
works, of knowing in what esteem they are held 
either by the world in general, or else by the 
more learned classes? There are extant, indeed, 


26 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


splendid volumes—volumes which I can scarcely 
enumerate, much less peruse with care. ‘The 
fame of thy deeds and thy works is very great, 
and has spread far and wide. ‘Thy name, too, 
has a familiar ring to all. Very few and rare, 
however, are those who study thee, and for 
various reasons: either because of the natural 
perversity of the times toward such studies, or 
because the minds of men have become dull and 
sluggish, or, as I think most likely, because 
greed has bent their minds in an entirely differ- 
ent direction. Wherefore, some of thy works 
have (unless I am mistaken) perished in this 
generation, and I know not whether they will 
ever be recovered. Oh, how great is my grief 
thereat; how great is the ignominy of this age; 
how great the loss to posterity! It was not, I 
suppose, sufficiently degrading to neglect our 
own powers, and to bequeath to future genera- 
tions no fruit of our intellects; but, worse than 
all else, we had to destroy the fruit also of thy 
labor with our cruel, our unpardonable dis- 
regard.) This lamentable loss has overtaken not 
merely thy works, but also those of many other 
illustrious authors. But at present I would 
speak of thy writings only; and the names of 
those whose loss is the more regrettable are the 


TO M. T. CICERO 24 


following: De republica, De re familiari, De 
re militari, De laude philosophiae,? De conso- 
latione, and the De gloria.t° \Concerning the 
last, however, I entertain a more or less doubt- 
ful hope of its recovery, and consequently my 
despair is not unqualified./ Unfortunately, how- 
ever, even of those books that have come down 
to us, there are lacking large portions. It is 
as if we had overcome, after a great struggle, 
the oblivion threatened by the sloth and inactiv- 
ity of ages; but, as the price of victory, we had 
to mourn over our leaders, not only those to be 
numbered among the dead, but also the maimed 
and the lost. We miss this loss in many of 
thy works, but more especially in the De oratore,** 
the Academica, and the De legibus—all of which 
have reached us in such a fragmentary and 
mutilated condition that it would have been 
better, perhaps, had they perished altogether. 

There remains still another topic. Art thou 
desirous of learning the present condition of 
Rome and of the Roman state ? of knowing the 
actual appearance of thy fatherland, the state 
of harmony among its citizens, to whom the 
shaping of its policies has fallen, and by whose 
wisdom and by whose hands the reins of govern- 
ment are held? Art thou wondering whether 


28 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


or not the Danube, and the Ganges, and the 
Ebro, and the Nile, and the Don are still the 
boundaries of our empire? and whether that 
man has arisen among us 


The limits of whose victories 
Are ocean, of his fame the skies, 


and who 


O’er Ind and Garamant extreme 
Shall stretch his reign, 


as thy Mantuan friend once sang?*” I feel 
sure that thou art most eager to hear such and 
similar tidings, owing to thy loyalty and the 
love thou didst bear the fatherland, a love re- 
maining constant even unto death. But it is 
better to pass over such subjects in silence. 
‘Believe me, Cicero, if thou wert to learn of the 
fallen state of our country, thou wouldst weep 
bitter tears, be it a region of Heaven that thou 
inhabitest, or of Hades. Forever farewell. 
From the land of the living, on the left bank of the 
Rhone, in Transpadane Gaul, in the same year, on the 


fourteenth day before the Kalends of January (at Avignon, 
December 19, 1345). 


NoTES ON Fam., XXIV, 4, TO CICERO 


1. Terence, Andria, i, 1, 41.  Petrarch’s 
words, ‘‘ut ipse soles dicere, quod ait familiaris 
tuus in Andria” (Vol. III, p. 264), are proof 
that he was not quoting Terence directly, but 
the De amicitia. In chap. 89 of the latter we 
read, ‘‘Quod in Andria familiaris meus dicit,”’ 
and then follows the verse in question. ‘The 
speaker is of course Laelius, of whom Terence 
was in fact a friend. Petrarch, therefore, has 
either momentarily lost sight of the speaker, or, 
realizing full well that Laelius is Cicero’s mouth- 
piece, has consciously identified the two. This 
would, of course, make Terence a friend of 
Cicero; the ‘‘familiaris meus”’ of the De ami- 
citia and the ‘‘familiaris tuus” of Petrarch 
both, therefore, become equivalent to ‘‘famil- 
laris Ciceronis.”’ 

2. There is a passage in the De finibus in 
which Cicero especially contrasts the teachings 
of Epicurus with his life. It is ii, 80 and 81: 


That philosophy which you defend, and those tenets 
which you have learned, and approve of, destroy friend- 
ship to the very roots, even though Epicurus does extol 


29 


30 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


friendship to the skies—as we must confess. ‘But 
Epicurus himself cultivated friendships,” you will say. 
And who, pray, is denying that he was a good and kindly 
man, full of sympathy for his fellow-beings? We are 
here discussing his intellect, not his life. We shall leave 
such fickleness and perversity to the Greeks, who attack 
With animosity all who may differ from them in their 
beliefs concerning truth. I must say, however, that, 
although he was affable in maintaining his friendships 
(if this be true, for I affirm nothing), yet he did not possess 
a keen mind. To which you will rejoin, ‘“‘But he con- 
vinced many people.” .... To me, indeed, the fact 
that Epicurus himself was a good man, and that there 
have been and are today many Epicureans, loyal in their 
friendships, consistent in their actions throughout life, 
serious of disposition and shaping their plans without 
regard to pleasure but rather through a sense of duty— 
to me these facts prove that the power of integrity is 
superior, and that of pleasure inferior. In truth, some 
_ persons live in such a way that their life confutes their 
words. And therefore, just as others are considered 
to speak better than they act, so these Epicureans (it 
seems) must be said to act better than they speak. 


Cicero mentions the inconsistency of Epicurus 
ine u,",960:.)°Shisten now |)": s .otomtne saying 
words of Epicurus, and observe how widely 
his deeds and his words disagree; and again 
in ii, 99: ‘But you will find nothing in this 
splendid letter of Epicurus in accord and con- 
sistent with his maxims. He refutes himself, 


TO M. T. CICERO at 


while his theories are set at naught by his upright 
Lites? 

As Petrarch says, Books I and II of the De 
finibus are crowded with favorable and adverse 
comments on Epicurus and his philosophy. 
Of the latter it will suffice to refer to i, 22, in 
which Cicero accuses Epicurus of being utterly 
wanting in logic; and to 1, 26, where he denies 
that Epicurus can be admitted to the number 
of the learned. 

3. Perhaps a reminiscence of Pliny, NV. #., 
Vil, 30 exir.: “‘salve-.’... .-facundiae Latia- 
rumque litterarum parens.”’ 

4. Seneca, Conir., ii, prae}. 8. 

5. Seneca, Contr., 1, praej. 11. 

6. Aen., xii, 168. Donatus, Vita Verg., XI, 
41 (p. 60 R, through pronuntiarentur only): 


The publication of the Bucolics was attended by such 
great success that they were frequently recited, even by 
actors on the stage. Cicero once heard some of the 
verses, and his keen judgment at once perceived that they 
Were written in no common vein. So he ordered the 
eclogue to be recited from the beginning; and after 
listening attentively to the very end, he exclaimed, 
‘“Rome’s other hope and stay;” as if he himself had 
been the first hope of the Latin tongue, and Maro were 
to be the second. These words Maro afterward inserted 
in the Aeneid. 


32 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


This version does not mention Cicero’s 
inquiry as to the author of the verses he admired 
(‘‘quaesivisses auctorem’’), nor their meeting 
(“‘eumque ... . vidisses’’) nor the fact that 
his exclamation was flattering both to himself 
and to Vergil (‘cum propria quidem laude 
permixtum’’). Servius’ version, however, does 
include these three elements, and hence he is 
to be considered Petrarch’s source. He writes 
(ad. Ecl., vi, 11): 

It is said that Vergil’s reading of this eclogue (vi) 
was received with great favor; so much so, indeed, that 
when later Cytheris the courtesan (whom Vergil calls 
Lycoris in the last eclogue) sang it in the theater, Cicero 
in amazement inquired who the author of it was (‘‘cuius 
esset requireret’’). And when at last Cicero had seen 
binice (“eum > aawicissets )jo her 1s\.esdid== Conehave 
exclaimed, in praise of both himself and that other (‘‘et 
ad suam et ad illius laudem”’), ‘‘Rome’s other hope and 
stay” —a phrase which Vergil afterward applied to 
Ascanius, as the commentators relate. 


This version was one which would especially 
appeal to Petrarch; for, as P. de Nolhac justly 
observes (I, p. 125), it represents Petrarch’s 
two literary idols as having been personally 
acquainted with each other. e 

And, finally, in favor of the Servian origin 
is the fact that in Donatus the entire story 


TO M. T. CICERO 33 


appears in the interpolated version of the Vzta, 
and it is doubtful whether Petrarch was 
acquainted with this longer version (Sabbadini, 
Rend. del R. Ist. Lomb., [1906], p. 198). The 
interpolated text of the Vita has, in fact, been 
traced only as far back as the beginning of the 
fifteenth century; the date temporarily assigned 
to it is 1400-20 (Sabbadini, “La ‘Vergilii Vita’ 
di Donato,” Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica, 
Vol, V, 1897, pp. 384-88). 

7. Cicero, however, is much more guarded 
in his statement than we would infer from the 
words of Petrarch; Tusc.,1, 3, 5: ‘‘Then came 
the Lepidi, Carbo, and the Gracchi, and so 
many great orators after them down to our 
own times, that we were very little, if at all, 
inferior to the Greeks.”’ 

8. Translation, by Ch. R. Moore (p. 73), 
of Propertius, 11, 34), 65, 66 (vec. Aem. Baehrens, 
Teubner, 1880) or 11, 34, 65, 66 (H. E. Butler, 
1905). 

There is abundant proof that Petrarch was 
acquainted with Propertius (P. de Nolhac, I, - 
pp. 170-72). still, from the few indirect 
references to this author, one is inclined to 
believe that Petrarch here (as elsewhere) is 
drawing upon the Lije by Donatus for biograph- 


34 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


ical information on Vergil. And in fact the 
Propertian couplet seems to derive from Dona- 
tus, Vita Verg., XII, 45 (p. 61R), the ‘‘operis 
fundamenta”’ and “asseverare non timuit”’ 
of Petrarch (Vol. III, p. 266), corresponding, 
respectively, to the ‘“‘ Aeneidos vixdum coeptae”’ 
and ‘‘non dubitaverit sic praedicare”’ of Dona- 
tus. In commenting upon this famous distich, 
H. Nettleship says (‘‘Vergil,” in Classical 
Writers [New York, 1880], p. 86): ‘‘ Propertius 
and Ovid saw at once what was in Vergil. Of 
the Aeneid Propertius said ‘something greater 
than the Jlzad is coming to the birth.” (Cf. 
' Ancient Lives oj Vergil [Oxford, 1879], p. 67.) 
Comparetti, however, has chosen a different 
course in his Vergil in the Middle Ages (tr. by 
Benecke, 1895). On p. 3, after stating that the 
Romans confessed Vergil’s inferiority to Homer, 
he continues in a footnote: 

The exaggerations of a few enthusiasts must not be 
reckoned at more than their real value. How great a 
part of the ‘“‘Nescio quid maius nascitur Iliade”’ of Pro- 
pertius was due to his friendship with Vergil becomes 


clear when we compare with it the praises he lavishes 
on the 7ebaid of another friend, Ponticus. 


g. In a large tome containing Cicero’s writ- 
ings, and supposed to have belonged to Petrarch, 


TO M. T. CICERO 35 


there occurred the rubric ‘‘de laude ac defensione 
philosophiae, introducens Lucullum loquentem 
ad Hortensium, liber primus incipit.”” Petrarch, 
misled by this heading, had been of the opinion 
that the work following was the Hortensius. 
As a matter of fact, it was book 11 of the Aca- 
demica Priora, which has the separate sub- 
title ““Lucullus” (PB: de Nolhac, I, pp. 228, 
244 ff.). He labored under this delusion for 
some time, until in reading St. Augustine he 
met citations from the real Hortenstus, which 
of course he could not verify in his supposed 
Hortensius. Finally he received from Marco 
Barbato da Sulmona, whom he had met in 1341 
at Naples, a manuscript containing a work 
inscribed Academica. Investigation quickly 
showed him that this work and his supposed 
Hortensius were one and the same. But he 
was unwilling to relinquish the idol he had 
worshiped so long. Doubts still remained. 
On his visit to Naples in 1343, however, he 
identified once and for all the work in his own 
manuscript; and on his return he entered the 
following note abreast of the heading: ‘‘This 
title, though common, is nevertheless a false 
one. This is not the De laude philosopmiae, 
but the last two of the four books of the Aca- 


36 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


demica.” The present letter to Cicero was 
written in 1345, two years after the correction 
of his error; hence Petrarch rightly places the 
De laude philosophiae (sive Hortensius) in the 
catalogue of lost books. 

The closing statement of Petrarch’s postilla 
needs a few words of explanation. The frag- 
ment which he possessed constituted book u 
of the Ac. priora. Petrarch supposed that he 
had not one, but two books. The deception 
was due to an arbitrary division in his manu- 
script at the words ‘‘Hortensius autem vehe- 
menter” (Ac. pr., 11, 63). Still another error 
existed. Petrarch thought that his fragment 
was part of the second edition of the Academica 
in four books—the Posteriora dedicated to 
Varro, of whose existence he had learned from 
the letters to Atticus (cf. xiii, 13) which he had 
discovered earlier in the same year. 

to. Every biography relates how Petrarch 
gave in loan to his teacher, Convennole (or 
Convenevole) da Prato, a manuscript contain- 
ing the De gloria of Cicero; and how the school- 
master, in an hour of extreme need, pawned 
the volume, which could never again be found 
in spite of Petrarch’s constant search for it. 
The story as we have it is told by Petrarch him- 


TO M. T. CICERO oY 


self, in a letter written in 1374, the very last 
year of his life (Sem., xvi, 1). 

Modern scholarship has cast doubts upon 
the tale. P. de Nolhac discusses the question 
thoroughly in Vol. I, pp. 260-68. His explana- 
tion of the evolution of the idea which possessed 
Petrarch is the following. 

In his youth Petrarch must have read in the 
lost volume some beautiful passages on glory— 
passages which remained more or less firmly 
fixed in his mind. In later years, when his 
scholarship broadened, he learned of a separate 
work by Cicero on the subject of glory; and, 
questioning his memory, the remembrance of 
those passages became so clear and distinct that 
he began to imagine he had really possessed 
the De gloria in the volume unfortunately loaned 
to his schoolmaster. ‘The hope arose that he 
might some day find the volume again. It 
was while in this stage that he wrote the present 
letter (1345), saying that he entertained a more 
or less doubtful hope of its recovery and that 
his despair was not unqualified. His regret 
increased with the years. By dreaming of 
his hoped-for recovery of the manuscript, by 
discussing it with his friends year after year, 
Petrarch finally, as so often results from the 


38 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


frequent repetition of a story, persuaded him- 
self that he had at one time been the actual 
possessor of the De gloria. Hence it was that, 
writing thirty years later, in 1374, when his mind 
was losing its firm grip on facts, and when he 
was tottering on the brink of the grave, the 
unfulfilled hope for a thing long desired turned 
into a regret for a thing actually lost (op. cit., 
p. 266). 

tr. Petrarch was mistaken in placing the 
De oratore among the fragmentary works. In 
the large tome already referred to, there fol- 
lowed hard upon the heels of the De oratore 
what is now known as the Orator. The latter 
did not, however, bear a separate title, and 
consequently Petrarch considered it as a fourth 
book to the De oratore. Moreover, this pseudo- 
fourth book had a large lacuna, for it began 
only with the words “‘ (aliquan) toque robustius”’ 
(sec. 91); and the lacuna being clearly indicated, 
Petrarch unavoidably thought the De oratore 
- Incomplete (P. de Nolhac, I, pp. 228-30, 242). 
To be correct he should have written Orator 
instead of De oratore. But even this would 
scarcely have mended matters; for, not being 
aware of the separate existence of these two 
works, Petrarch was wont to cite passages from 


TO M. T. CICERO 39 


one and the other, employing the indiscriminate 
title Orator (ibid., pp. 253, 254). 

After this enumeration of the lost and frag- 
mentary works, it will be interesting to know 
with how many writings of Cicero Petrarch was 
really acquainted at this time. Fortunately 
for our purpose, he writes to Lapo da Casti- 
glionchio in 1352, describing to him the beauty 
and quiet of his retreat at Vaucluse, and the 
reading with which he occupied all his time. 
The letter in full—Fam., xu, 8: 


According to my custom, I fled recently from the tur- 
moil of the city that is so odious to me, and betook myself 
to my Helicon across the Alps. I brought with me your 
Cicero, who was greatly astonished at the beauty of these 
new regions and who confessed that never—not even 
when in his own retreat at Arpinum—had he (to use his 
own phrase) been surrounded by cooler streams than 
when with me at the Fountain of the Sorgue. I suppose 
that when, long ago, he visited Narbonne, he did not 
observe this country. And yet, if we are to believe Pliny, 
this district formed part of the province of Narbonne; 
and, according to the present division, it is part of the 
province of Arles. Whatever be the truth concerning 
the geographical division of the provinces, one thing is 
certain, that the Fountain of the Sorgue is most renowned, 
second neither to the Campanian Nymph nor to the 
Sicilian Arethusa. This soothing, quiet, peaceful coun- 
try, and this delightsome retreat are situated to one side 


% 


40 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


of the public highway, to the right of one seeking it, to 
the left of him returning therefrom. I have thus minutely 
described its site lest you might wonder that Cicero, 
while traveling in these parts so long ago, failed to notice 
this sequestered spot, delightful as it is. No mere 
passer-by has ever discovered it. No one has ever reached 
it except purposing to do so through certain knowledge 
of its existence, drawn to the spot by the beauty of the 
Fountain, or by his desire for repose and study. And 
how unusual this is you will soon realize if you consider 
on the one hand the great scarcity of poets, and on the 
other the multitude of those who have not even a smatter- 
ing of the liberal arts. Cicero therefore seems to rejoice 
and to be eager to remain in my company. We have 
now passed ten quiet and restful days together here. 
Here only, and in no other place outside of Italy, do I 
breathe freely. In truth, study has this great virtue, 
that it appeases our desires for a life of solitude, mitigates 
our aversion for the vulgar herd, tenders us sought-for 
repose even in the midst of the thickest crowds, instils 
in us many noble thoughts, and provides us with the 
fellowship of most illustrious men even in the most 
solitary forests. 

My companion was attended by a numerous and 
distinguished gathering. Not to mention those of Greek 
birth, the Romans present were Brutus, Atticus, and 
Herennius, all of them rendered still more honorable 
by their presence in the works of Cicero [Epistolae ad 
Brutum, Atticum, Auctor ad Herennium]. Marcus 
Varro, also, was present, that most learned of all men, with 
whom Cicero strolled in the villa of the Academics [A cade- 
mica; cf. n. 9.]; and Cotta, and Velleius, and Lucilius 


TO M. T. CICERO Al 


Balbus, with whom he so keenly discussed the nature 
of the gods [De natura deorum]; and Nigidius and Cra- 
tippus, with whom he investigated the secrets of nature, 
the origin of the universe and its composition [T7maeus, 
sive de universo|. We had with us, moreover, Quintus 
Cicero, with whom he treated of the subject of divination 
and laws [De divinatione, De legibus]; and his own son, 
Marcus Cicero, to whom (when not as yet degenerated) 
he addressed his De officiis, pointing out to him what 
was honorable, and what expedient, and the conflict 
between the two. Sulpicius, Crassus, and Antonius— 
all very eloquent orators—formed part of our company, 
together with whom he explored the most hidden secrets 
of the art of oratory [De oratore]. Cato the Elder, too, 
was with us, whom Cicero made the spokesman in his 
praise of Old Age [De senectute]. Of our band were also 
Lucius Torquatus, Marcus Cato Uticensis and Marcus 
Piso, with whom, after a most painstaking discussion, 
he set down his theory of the ‘‘summum bonum” [De 
finibus]. Furthermore, we had the orator Hortensius, 
and Epicurus, the former represented in Cicero’s praise 
of philosophy [cf. n. 9.], the latter in his attack on a 
life of pleasure. With Laelius he outlined the course of 
true friendship [De amicitia], with Scipio the government 
of the“‘ideal State.” I shall not prolong my enumera- 
tion im infinitum; I shall merely add that among the 
Roman citizens there mingled many foreign rulers whom 
Cicero defended with his divine powers of oratory. 
However, not to omit those whose presence was due 
to your little volume, my friend, I shall mention Milo 
whom Cicero defended, and Laterensis whom he so 
fearlessly attacked [Pro Plancio], and Sulla, for whom 


42 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


he pleaded [Pro Corn. Sulla], and Pompey, whom he so 
highly praised [De tmperio Pompei]. With such men and 
others as my companions, my stay in the country has been 
a quiet, peaceful, and happy one. Would that it had 
continued longer. But alas, they have once again laid 
their claws upon me, and have once again dragged me to 
the Hades whence I am writing you this letter. I have 
been so busily engaged since then that my young attend- 
ant has found no time whatever for transcribing your vol- 
ume, nor have I had any opportunity of returning it to you. 
I trust that this will not be necessary until I can return 
it to you in Italy personally. I am promising myself 
an early return, provided I can induce our friend Forese 
to visit the above-mentioned Helicon the moment he 
is not so overwhelmingly occupied by his affairs. And 
I shall insist upon his visit in order that if at any time 
hereafter fate, or the love of change, or the desire to 
escape ennui will compel me to return—not to this city 
(whither, if I can help it, I shall never return), but to 
my Transalpine retreat—I shall be more readily pardoned 
by my friends in Italy by calling upon the testimony 
of so important a witness. Farewell. 


12. Aeneid i, 287, and vi, 794, 795, tr. by 
Conington (ed. 1900), pp. 13 and 210. 


Ill. TO L. ANNAEUS SENECA 
(Fam., XXIV, s) 


On another occasion, O Seneca, I begged 
and obtained the pardon of a great man indeed.* 
I should desire similar indulgence on thy part, 
if I express myself more sharply than is quite 
consistent with the reverence due to thy calling 
and to the peace of the grave. Whosoever has 
seen that I have not spared Marcus Cicero— 
whom (upon thy authority’) I called the bright 
luminary and fountain-head of Latin eloquence— 
will surely have no just cause for indignation 
because in continuing to speak the truth, I shall 
not spare thee or anyone else. I derive great 
enjoyment from speaking with you, O illustrious 
characters of antiquity. Each succeeding age has 
suffered your works to remain in great neglect; 
but our own age is quite content, in its ignorance, 
with a dearth that has become extraordinary. 
For my part, I daily listen to your words with 
more attention than can be believed; and so, per- 
chance, I shall not be considered impertinent in 
desiring you in your turn to listen to me once. 

I am fully aware that thou art to be numbered 

43 


44 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


among those whose names are _ illustrious. 
Were I unable to gather this from any other 
source, I should still learn it from a great foreign 
authority. Plutarch, a Greek and the tutor of 
Emperor Trajan, in comparing the renowned 
men of his country with those of ours, opposed 
Marcus Varro to Plato and Aristotle (the former 
of whom the Greeks call divine, the latter 
inspired), Vergil to Homer, and Marcus Tullius 
to Demosthenes. He finally dared to discuss 
even the vexed question of military leaders, 
in the treatment of which he was not hampered 
by the respect due to his great pupil. In one 
department of learning, however, he did not 
blush to acknowledge that the genius of the 
Greeks was distinctly inferior, saying that he 
knew not whom to place on a par with thee in 
the field of moral philosophy.’ Great praise 
this, especially from the mouth of a man proud 
of his race, and a startling concession, seeing 
that he had opposed his Alexander the Macedon 
to our Julius Caesar. 

I cannot explain why it is, but often the most 
perfect mold of either mind or body is marred 
by some serious blemish of nature, which speaks 
in such various language. It may be that our 
common mother denies perfection to mankind 


TO L. ANNAEUS SENECA 45 


(the more so, indeed, the nearer we seem to 
approach it), or else that among so much that 
is beautiful even the slightest defect becomes 
noticeable. ‘That which in a face of average 
beauty might be considered an engaging and 
attractive mark becomes a positively ugly scar 
on features of surpassing beauty. ‘The juxta- 
position of contradictory things always sheds 
light upon doubtful points. 

And yet do thou, O venerable sir and (accord- 
ing to Plutarch) incomparable teacher of moral 
philosophy, do thou review with me calmly the 
great error of thy life. Thou didst fall upon 
evil days, in the reign of the most savage ruler 
within the memory of man.* Though thyself a 
peaceful mariner, thou didst guide thy bark, 
heavily laden as it was with the most precious 
goods, toward an unspeakably dangerous and 
tempestuous reef. But, I ask, why didst thou 
tarry there? Was it, perhaps, that thou 
mightest the better evince thy masterly skill 
in so stormy a sea? None but a madman 
would have thus chosen. ‘To be sure, it is the 
part of a brave man to face danger resolutely, 
but not that of a wise man to seek it. Were 
the prudent man to be given a free choice, he 
would so live that there would never be need of 


46 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


bravery; for nothing would ever happen to him 
that would compel him to make any call upon 
it. The wise man will rather (as the name 
implies) check all excessive demonstrations of 
joy, and confine his desires within proper 
bounds. But since the accidents of life are 
countless, and since our best-laid plans are 
many times undone thereby, we must oppose 
to mad fortune an unconquerable fortitude, not 
from choice (as I have already said), but in 
obedience to the hard, inexorable laws of 
necessity. 

But shall I not seem to have lost my senses 
if I continue to preach on virtue to the great 
teacher of morality, and if I labor to prove that 
which can by no manner of means be confuted, 
namely, that it was folly to remain among the 
shoals? I leave it for thee to judge—nay, for 
anyone who has learned to sail the sea of life 
even tolerably well. If thy object was to reap 
glory from the very difficulty of thy situation, I 
answer that it would have been most glorious 
to extricate thyself therefrom and to bring thy 
ship in safety to some port. ‘Thou didst see 
the sword hanging perpetually over thy head, 
yet didst fear not, nor didst thou take any step 
to escape from such a perilous existence. And 


TO L. ANNAEUS SENECA 47 


thou shouldst have, especially since thou must 
have realized that thy death was to be that most 
wretched of all deaths—one entirely devoid of 
advantage to others and of glory to thyself. 
Thou hadst fallen, O pitiable man, into the 
hands of one who had the power to do what he 
willed,s but who willed nothing except it were 
most vile. At the very beginning of thy intimate 
acquaintance with him thou wert warned by 
a startling dream,® and thereafter, whenever 
thou wert closely observant, thou didst discover 
many traits that proved thy fears to be well 
grounded. What, therefore, could induce thee 
to remain so long a member of his household ? 
What couldst thou have in common with such 
an inhuman and bloodstained pupil? or with 
courtiers so repugnant to thy very nature? 
Thou mayest answer: ‘‘I wished to flee, but 
could not;’’? and thou mayest adduce as a plea 
that verse of Cleanthes which thou art wont 
to quote in its Latin form: 


Fate leads the willing and drags the unwilling.’ 


Thou mayest, moreover, assert that thou didst 
desire to renounce thy life of ease, to break the 
toils in which wealth had enmeshed thee, and, 
even though in utter destitution, to escape from 


48 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


such a whirlpool. This defense was known 
also to the ancient historians, and I who follow 
in their footsteps was not able to pass it over 
in silence.* But if I concealed my innermost 
thoughts when defending thee in public, dost 
thou suppose that now, when my words are 
addressed directly to thee, I shall suppress what 
my indignation and love of truth urge me to 
say? Come now, approach nearer, that no 
stranger may overhear on becoming aware 
that time has not robbed us of a knowledge of 
thy doings. 

We have (thou must know) a most trust- 
worthy authority, one who, though writing of 
men in the highest station, was influenced 
neither by fear nor favor, Suetonius Tranquillus. 
And dost thou know what he says? That 
thou didst discourage Nero’s reading of the 
ancient orators in order that thou mightest 
retain him the longer as an admirer of thine 
own writings.° In other words, thou didst 
strive with might and main to be dear to one 
to whom thou shouldst have found some means 
of becoming an object of sovereign contempt 
and derision, by either feigning to have, or else 
really possessing, an irrepressible tongue. Am 
I not right? The first cause of all thy misery 


TO L. ANNAEUS SENECA 49 


was the shallowness of thy aim, not to say its 
-worthlessness. Though weighed down with 
years, thou didst pursue the elusive phantom 
of glory entirely too joyously, I might almost 
say childishly. Let us grant for the moment 
that it was the advice of another, or an error on 
thy part, or even fate that made thee the teacher 
of that ungovernable man—for in seeking to 
excuse our own faults we are wont to lay the 
blame on fate. But it was thy fault that thou 
didst remain his sponsor. Thou canst not 
accuse fortune; thy prayers were answered 
and thou obtainedst that which thou hadst so 
ardently longed for. 

But how was it all to end? Ah, thou 
wretched man! Since thou hadst endeared 
thyself to that wild youth to such an extent as 
to render it impossible for him to 'eave thee at 
will, shouldst thou not at least have borne with 
greater resignation the yoke which thou hadst 
assumed of thine own accord ?*° Shouldst 
thou not at least have refrained from branding 
the name of thy master with everlasting 
infamy ?** Didst thou not know that tragedy 
is the most serious of all compositions, as Naso 
says?*? And we all know how biting, how 
virulent, and how vehement is the tragedy that 


50 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


thou didst write against him.** Receive my 
words in good part, O Seneca, and be calm, 
for the more impatiently one listens to the truth 
the more deeply is he wounded by it. Unless 
perchance I am wronging thee, and the conten- 
tion of some be true, that the author of those 
tragedies is not thou, but another bearing the 
same name. For the Spaniards assert both 
that Cordova produced two Senecas,** and 
that the name of that tragedy (written against 
Nero) is Octavia. In this play there is a pas- 
sage that gives rise to the suspicion of author- 
ship.** If we accept the conclusions drawn 
therefrom, thou wilt be entirely acquitted of 
having written the tragedy to avenge the burden 
of thy yoke. As far as style is concerned, that 
other author (whoever he is) is by no means 
thy inferior, although he is later than thou in 
‘time and far behind thée in reputation. The 
more inadequate is the attack on infamous 
conduct, the weaker is the intellectual power 
of the writer. Indeed, beyond the attack on 
Nero there is (in my opinion) no other excuse 
for the writing of that much-discussed play. 
And the attack must be inadequate in this case, 
for I realize that no bitterness of either thought 
or expression could be quite commensurate 


TO L. ANNAEUS SENECA 51 


with the abominable deeds of that man—if 
he be worthy the name of man. 

Consider, however, whether it was proper 
for thee to write of him as thou didst, when the 
relationship between you was that of subject 
and sovereign, subordinate and superior, teacher 
and pupil. Was it fitting that thou shouldst 
write thus of him whom it was thy custom to 
flatter, or rather (not to mince matters) by 
flattering, deceive? Re-read the books which 
thou didst dedicate to him on the subject of 
Mercy;*® recollect the sentiments expressed 
in the volume which thou didst address to 
Polybius on Consolation; finally, run over thy 
other works, the fruit of many sleepless nights, 
provided that the waters of Lethe have not 
wiped out all memory of them. Do as I say, 
and (I am sure) thou wilt be ashamed of the 
praises thou didst lavish upon thy pupil. I for 
one cannot comprehend thy effrontery in pen- 
ning such words of such a man; I cannot read 
them without a sense of shame. But thou wilt — 
have recourse to the customary defense, I know. 
Thou wilt adduce the youth of the prince and 
his disposition, which gave promise of much 
better results; and thou wilt endeavor to defend 
the error of thy choice by his sudden and unex- 


52 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


pected change in life.*7 As if these arguments 
were unknown to us! But consider this, how 
utterly inexcusable it was that a few, unimpor- 
tant acts of a charlatan prince, and his mur- 
mured hypocritical phrases on duty, should 
have warped the mind and judgment of a man 
of thy discretion, thy years, thy experience in 
life, and thy learning. Tell me, pray, what 
deed of Nero pleased thee? I mean of course 
before he plunged headlong into the abyss of 
disgraceful crimes—that earlier period whose 
deeds some historians record (to use their own 
words)*® with no reproof, others with no incon- 
siderable amount of praise. Which of them, 
I ask, pleased thee? Was it his fondness for 
contending in the chariot-race,*? or for playing 
on the cithern? We read, in fact, that he dili- 
gently applied himself to these pursuits; that 
at first he practiced in secret, in the presence of 
his slaves and the squalid poor only, but that 
later he performed even in public, and, though 
a monarch, drove his chariot in sight of all Rome 
like an ordinary charioteer; and that, posing 
as a pre-eminent player, he worshiped the 
cithern presented to him as if it had been a 
divinity.7° At last, elated at these successes, 
and as if not content with the critical acumen 


TO L. ANNAEUS SENECA 53 


of the Italians, he visited Achaia, and, puffed 
up by the adulation of the art-loving Greeks, 
declared that only they were worthy of being 
his listeners.** Ridiculous monster, savage 
beast !??_ Or, perhaps, didst thou consider the 
following a sure omen of a good and conscien- 
tious ruler, that he consecrated on the Capitol 
his first growth of beard, the first molting of 
his inhuman face ??3 

These surely are acts of thy Nero, O Seneca, 
and acts performed by him at an age when the 
historians still reckoned him among human 
beings, and when thou didst strive to set him 
among the gods by commendations worthy 
neither of the one praising nor the one praised. 
Indeed, thou didst not hesitate to rank him 
above that best of rulers, the deified Augustus.” 
I do not know whether thou art ashamed of 
this; I am. But I suppose thou didst deem 
Nero’s deeds worthy of greater praise, in that he 
tortured the Christians, a truly holy and harm- 
less sect, but (as it seemed to him and to Sue- 
tonius who tells the story) guilty of embracing 
a new and baneful superstition.** Nero 
had now become the persecutor and the most 
bitter enemy of all righteousness. In all 
seriousness, however, I do not entertain such 


54 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


an evil opinion of thee, wherefore I wonder all 
the more at thy earlier resolutions. And natu- 
rally so, because the youthful deeds of Nero were 
too pitiful and vain, whereas his persecution 
was execrable and frightful. This must have 
been thy opinion, for in one of thy letters to the 
apostle Paul thou didst not only intimate, but 
actually declare it.?° Nor, I feel sure, couldst 
thou have thought otherwise, once thou hadst 
given a willing ear to his holy and heavenly 
teachings, and hadst embraced a friendship so 
divinely held out to thee. Would that thou 
hadst been more steadfast and that thou hadst 
not in the end been torn away from him! Would 
that, together with that messenger of the Truth, 
thou hadst chosen to die for the sake of that 
same Truth, for the promised reward in heaven, 
and in honor of that great apostle! 

The impulse of my subject, however, has 
taken me too far, and I perceive that I have 
begun my sowing too late to entertain any hopes 
of a good crop. So farewell forever. 


Written in the land of the living, in Cisalpine Gaul, 
between the left bank of the greedy Enza and the right 
bank of the bridge-shattering Parma, on the Kalends of 
Sextilis (August 1) in the year from the birth of Him 
whom I am uncertain whether thou didst know or not, 
the thirteen hundred and forty-eighth. 


NOTES ON Fam., XXIV, 5, TO SENECA 


1. A reference to the opening lines of the 
preceding letter, fam., XXIV, 4. 

2. Seneca, Ep., 40, 11: “Cicero quoque nos- 
ter, a quo Romana eloquentia exsiluit, gradarius 
-fuit;” (cf. Seneca, Contr.,i, praej.6). Petrarch 
refers to that passage in his second letter to 
Cicero, Fam. XXIV, 4, beginning with the 
words, ‘““O Romani eloquii summe parens’’ 
(Vol. IIT, p. 264). 

3. The only passages in which Plutarch men- 
tions Seneca are ‘‘De cohibenda ira,”’ Moralia, 
Vol. III, p. 201, ll. 16-23, and ‘‘Galba,” chap. 
XX, mit. In neither of these is there any praise 
of the philosopher. Moreover, it is useless 
to search through the works of Plutarch, because 
Petrarch was acquainted with not a single one 
of his works. Hence the statement made in 
the Lemaire edition, Vol. CIV, p. xlviu, that 
‘‘Petrarch had access to several ancient works 
which are absolutely lost to us,”’ cannot apply 
in this case at least. Petrarch, however, was 
acquainted with the “‘Institutio Traiani” (a 
Latin fabrication), the authenticity of which 
is today disputed. P. de Nolhac has pointed 

55 


56 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


this out (II, p. 122), and shows that Petrarch 
actually refers to this work by name in the 
Remedium, I, 81. And even closer acquaintance 
is revealed in Fam., XXIV, 7, where Petrarch 
writes to Quintilian that the indiscretions of 
his wards (Domitian’s grandnephews) were 
made to detract from his fair name (Vol. III, 
p. 280). These words are quoted verbatim 
from the ‘“‘Institutio Traiani’’ (Moralia, Vol. 
VII, p. 183); and in the same passage Plutarch 
makes a precisely similar reference to Seneca 
and to Socrates. The grouping of these three 
names is somewhat contradictory to the state- 
ment which Petrarch makes in the present 
letter. 

4. Seneca, Octavia, 441-46 (tr. by E. I. 
Harris): 

SENECA. The garnered vices of so many years 

Abound in us, we live in a base age 

When crime is regnant, when wild lawlessness 

Reigns and imperious passion owns the sway 

Of shameless lust; the victress luxury 


Plundered long since the riches of the world 
That she might in a moment squander them. 


5. Dante, Inj., III, 94-96 (tr. by Longfellow): 
And unto him the Guide: ‘‘ Vex thee not Charon; 


It is so willed there where is power to do 
That which is willed; and farther question not.” 


TO L. ANNAEUS SENECA 57 


It borders on the sacrilegious, however, to make 
this reference, when we consider the One meant 
in the verses of Dante. 

6. Suet., Nero, 7. This passage is the source 
also of Rer. mem., IV, 4, De somniis, in which 
(p. 474) Petrarch gives the story of this dream 
at greater length. 


Annaeus Seneca (a Roman senator at the time) was 
chosen by Emperor Claudius as tutor for the young Nero, 
who then gave hopeful signs of a good and kindly nature. 
The very next night Seneca is said to have dreamt that 
he had as his pupil C. Caligula, whose most horrible 
cruelty had long since met with a fitting end. Seneca 
was awakened, and had good cause for wondering greatly. 
But not much later the humor of Nero changed, or, to 
put it more correctly, it revealed itself, and his heart 
became entirely devoid of feelings of gentleness. All 
wonder was dispelled. Nero was a second Caligula, so 
much like him had he become. Nay! Caligula himself 
seemed somehow to have returned from the regions of 
the dead. And now I shall return to dreams had by 
emperors. 


7. Seneca, H~., 107, 11: ‘‘Ducunt volentem 
fata, nolentem trahunt/? Cf: also Dizal., i, 
De Providentia, 5, 7: ‘‘Fata nos ducunt.” 
In Ep., 107, 10, Seneca distinctly says that he 
has translated the verses from the Greek of 
Cleanthes. ‘These four verses, with their trans- 


58 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


lation, can be found in Ramage, Familiar 
Quotations from Latin Authors, p. 671. 

8. In Rer. mem., III, 3, p. 441, quoted in 
full in note to below. 

g. Suet., Nero, 52. In this instance, as in 
all references to Suetonius in this letter, Petrarch 
follows his original very closely; indeed, quotes 
him almost verbatim (cf. Frac., Vol. III, p. 271). 

Io. Seneca, Octavia, 388-407 (tr. by E. I. 
Harris): 

SENECA. I was content, why hast thou flattered me, 

O potent Fortune, with thy treacherous smiles ? 

Why hast thou carried me to such a height, 

That lifted to the palace I might fall 

The farther, look upon the greater crimes ? 

Ah, happier was I when I dwelt afar 

From envy’s stings, among the rugged cliffs 

Of Corsica, where my free spirit knew 

Leisure for study. Ah, how sweet it was 

To look upon the sky, th’ alternate change 

Of day and night, the circuit of the earth, 

The moon, the wandering stars that circle her, 

And the far-shining glory of the sky, 

Which when it has grown old shall fall again 

Into the night of chaos,—that last day 

Has come, which ’neath the ruin of the skies 

Shall bury this vile race. A brighter sun, 

Newborn, shall bring to life another race, 

Like that the young world knew, when Saturn ruled 

In the high heavens. 


TO L. ANNAEUS SENECA 59 


As a comment on this passage, we may repeat, 
with Dante (/n}., V, 121-23, tr. by Longfellow): 


There is no greater sorrow 
Than to be mindful of the happy time 
In misery. 


At the time of his exile in Corsica, however, 
Seneca did not hold quite the same opinion of 
his life on that island, and wrote the Conso- 
latio ad Polybium, full of flattery of Emperor 
Claudius, mainly to effect his recall. 

Petrarch dwells upon the fate of Seneca also 
in Rer. mem., III, 3, p. 441: 


In a certain tragedy (the Octavia) Annaeus Seneca 
deplores in strong and magnificent lines his return from 
exile in the island of Corsica, where he had been living 
in sweet leisure, in most welcome peace of mind, and 
free to pursue what studies he pleased. He shuddered 
at the daily increasing ungodliness of Nero, at the envy 
of the courtiers which enveloped everything, and often 
sought toescape. But fearing that his riches would prove 
his undoing and would overwhelm him like the waves 
of the sea, he surrendered them all. A wise precaution, 
truly. For it is the part of a wise sailor to hurl his treas- 
ures into the tempestuous sea, that he may escape by 
swimming, even though entirely destitute. And simi- 
larly expedient is it for him who fears death at the hands 
of the enemy to sacrifice calmly the limb by which 
he is fettered, in order that, though maimed, he may 
effect his escape. No one, indeed, reproves Seneca for 


60 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


remaining against his will in that hotbed of crimes. He 
left no stone unturned to escape the crisis which he fore- 
saw. But an unswerving destiny blocked this man too, 
and at the very moment when success seemed about to 
crown his efforts. Fate did not permit him to pass, 
until that inhuman and perjured emperor, who had often 
sworn to him that he would die sooner than do him an 
injury, shortened the closing years of his aged teacher, 
not with an untimely, but with an irreverent and an 
undeserved death. 


Iz. Seneca, Octavia, 89-102 (tr. by E. I. 
Harris): 
OCTAVIA. Ah, sooner could I tame 
The savage lion or the tiger fierce, 
Than that wild tyrant’s cruel heart, he hates 
Those sprung of noble blood, he scorns alike 
The gods and men. He knows not how to wield 
The fortune his illustrious father gave 
By means of basest crime. And though he blush, 
Ungrateful, from his cursed mother’s hands 
To take the empire, though he has repaid 
The gift with death, yet shall the woman bear 
Her title ever, even after death. 


Octavia, 240-56: 


OctaviA. With the fierce leader’s breath the very air 
Is heavy. Slaughter new the star forebodes 
To all the nations that this vile king rules. 
Typhoeus whom the parent earth brought forth, 
Angered by Jupiter, was not so fierce; 
This pest is worse, the foe of gods and men; 


TO L. ANNAEUS SENECA 61 


He from their temples drives th’ immortal gods, 
The citizens he exiles from their land, 
He took his brother’s life, his mother’s blood 
He drank, he sees the light, enjoys his life, 
Still draws his poisonous breath! Ah, why so oft, 
Mighty creator, throwest thou in vain 
Thy dart from royal hand that knows not fear ? 
Why sparest thou to slay so foul an one ? 
Would that Domitian’s son, the tyrant harsh, 
Who with his loathsome yoke weighs down the earth, 
Who stains the name Augustus with his crimes, 
The bastard Nero, might at last endure 
The penalty of all his evil deeds. 

Octavia, 630-43: 

AGRIPPINA. Ah, spare, revenge isthine! I donot ask 
For long; th’ avenging goddess has prepared 
Death worthy of the tyrant, coward flight, 
Lashes, and penalties that shall surpass 
The thirst of Tantalus, the heavy toil 
Of Sisyphus, the bird of Tityus, 
The flying wheel that tears Ixion’s limbs. 
What though he build his costly palaces 
Of marble, overlays them with pure gold ? 
Though cohorts watch the armored chieftain’s gates, 
Though the world be impoverished to send 
Its wealth to him, though suppliant Parthians kneel 
And kiss his cruel hand, though kingdoms give 
Their riches, yet the day shall surely come 
When for his crimes he will be called to give 
His guilty soul; when, banished and forlorn, 
In need of all things, he shall give his foes 
His life-blood. 


62 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


12. Ovid, Tristia, ii, 381: ‘‘Omne genus 
scripti gravitate tragoedia vincit.”’ 

13. The Octavia. See below, n. 15. 

14. Martial, i, 61, 7 and 8 (Fried.): 

Duosque Senecas, unicumque Lucanum 
Facunda loquitur Corduba. 
And yet these lines never suggested to Petrarch 
the distinction between Seneca the rhetorician 
and Seneca the philosopher. 

15. Teuffel, par. 290: ‘‘The praetexta en- 
titled Octavia is certainly not by Seneca.”” With 
this compare par. 290, n. 7, which gives a dis-, 
cussion of the above, and the bibliography. 
Teuffel says that 1. 630 of the Octavia describes 
the death of Nero, and consequently could not 
have been written by Seneca, who died some 
years earlier. It is these lines to which Petrarch 
refers when he says: ‘‘In this play there is a 
passage that gives rise to the suspicion of 
authorship.” 

16. The De clementia, having been written 
In 55-56 A.D., and dedicated to Nero, naturally 
contains numerous passages in praise of that 
emperor. We shall choose a few from the first 
book. De clementia, i, 1, 5-8: 

This, O Caesar, you can boldly assert; that you have 
most diligently cherished everything entrusted to your 


TO L. ANNAEUS SENECA 63 


faithful care, and that no harm has been plotted against 
the State by you either through open violence or through 
stealth. You have aspired to that rarest of praise, 
hitherto granted to none of our emperors—the praise 
of being thoroughly upright. You have not labored in 
vain. Your matchless virtues have not found ungrateful 
and spiteful appraisers. We render thee thanks. No 
one person has ever been as dear to a single man as you 
are to the entire Roman people..... But you have 
shouldered a heavy burden; you have assumed a great 
responsibility. No one now speaks of the deified Augus- 
tus, nor of the early years of Emperor Tiberius; no one 
seeks an exemplar beyond you, for it is you they wish to 
imitate. Your rule has been subjected to the test of the 
crucible—a test which it would have been difficult to resist, 
had your goodness been feigned for the moment, instead 
of its being (as it is) an innate quality of yours... .. The 
Roman people ran a great risk, uncertain whither your 
noble disposition would end. But the prayers of the 
people have been answered ere this. There is no danger, 
unless you should suddenly become forgetful of your 
CWT) aSeit so. 2) All your citizens today are compelled 
to make this confession—that they are happy; and this 
second confession—that nothing can be added to their 
complete happiness except the assurance that it may 
endure forever. Many causes urge them to this acknowl- 
edgment (the very last which man ever condescends to 
make)—their deep security, their prosperity, and their 
faith that the laws will be administered with absolute 
justice. There flits before our eyes a contented State, 
to whose complete freedom nothing is lacking except 
the liberty of its dying. 


64 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


It would be beyond our purpose to quote 
more of Seneca. It will suffice to give references 
to an earlier and to a later work. For the for- 
mer consult the Ludus (written in 54 A. D.), 1, 
I; iv, 1; xii, 2. For the latter, Naturales quaes- 
tiones (finished before 64 A. D.), vi, 8, 3; Vil, 
17, 2; 21, 3. 

17. Suet., Nero, 10. 

18. Suet., op. cit., 19, with which cf. Petrarch, 
VO FUL ps2 72: 

19. Ibid., 22 (cf. Petrarch, loc. cit.). 

20. Ibid., 12 (cf. Petrarch, foc. cit.). 

21. Ibid., 22 (cf. Petrarch, loc. cit.). 

22. It may, perhaps, prove interesting to 
the reader to see by what epithets Nero is 
referred to in the Octavia. From a cursory 
reading of the tragedy we glean the following: 
“vir crudelis” (Nutrix, 49); ‘‘capax scelerum”’ 
(Nutrix, 158); “‘immitis’”’ (Nutrix, 182); ‘‘im- 
plus”? (Chorus, 374); ‘“‘dirus’’? (Chorus, 674); 
‘“‘coniunx scelestus”’ (Octavia, 230); ‘‘saevus”’ 
(Octavia, 667); ‘“‘princeps nefandus” (Octa- 
vila, 232); “‘cruentus” (Chorus, 681);5 ‘terus” 
(Chorus, 703); ‘‘dux saevus’’ (Octavia, 240); 
‘“Impius”’ (Octavia, 242); ‘‘hostis deum homi- 
numque”’ (Octavia, 245); ‘‘monstrum” (Cho- 
rus, 383); ‘‘natus crudelis” (Agrippina, 615), 


TO L. ANNAEUS SENECA 65 


‘“‘nefandus” (Agrippina, 655); ‘‘saevus”’ (Cho- 
rus 984); ‘‘tyrannus” (Octavia, 34, I15, 919); 
“ferus” (Agrippina, 6216, Octavia, 986). 

Zea UCL UN er0,0 12: 

24. Seneca, De clementia, 1, 11, 1-3: 


While speaking of your clemency, no one will dare, in 
the same breath, to mention the name of the deified 
AUoUstUs: won. He displayed moderation and kind- 
ness, I grant you; but it was only after the sea of Actium 
had been dyed with Roman blood, after his own and 
his enemy’s fleets had been destroyed off the coast of 
Sicily, after the slaughter and proscriptions at Perugia. 
As for me, I do not call exhausted cruelty mercy. This, 
O Caesar, this which you exhibit is true mercy—which 
conveys no idea of repentance for previous barbarity, 
which is immaculate, unstained by the blood of fellow- 
CItiZENS vet oo You, O Caesar, have kept the State free 
from bloodshed, and your greatest boast is that through- 
out the length and breadth of your empire you have shed 
not a single drop of man’s blood, which is all the more 
remarkable and amazing because no one has been 
intrusted with a sword at an earlier age than you. 


In the Octavia, however, during a discussion 
between Seneca and Nero, in which the philos- 
opher endeavors to destroy his pupil’s belief 
in an emperor’s right to rule by the sword, the 
author says of a ruler that to 


Give the world rest, his generation peace, 
This is the height of virtue, by this path 


66 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


May heaven be attained; this is the way 
The first Augustus, father of the land, 
Gained ’mid the stars a place and as a god 
Is worshiped now in temples (Oct., 487-90). 


And Nero, who could learn at least those say- 
ings of his tutor that suited his fancy and served 
his purpose, thereupon replies in terms identical 
with those used by Seneca in De clementia, 1, 
I1, 1-3. Granted that the Octavia was written 
by Seneca, this discussion gives a very human 
touch to the relationship between the subject 
and his sovereign. 

2s, Suet., Nero, 16 (cf. Petrarch, loc. cii-). 

26. It is very probable that Petrarch received 
the first suggestion of the friendship between 
the philosopher and the apostle from the state- 
ment of St. Jerome, De viris ill., 12 (Seneca 
[Teubner], III, p. 476): 

Lucius Annaeus Seneca of Cordova, disciple of Sotion 
the Stoic and uncle of the poet Lucan, was a man of the 
most temperate. life. I should not place him in the cata- 
logue of saints, were it not for those letters, which are 
read by so many, of Paul to Seneca and of Seneca to 
Paul. In these Seneca, though the tutor of Nero and 
the most powerful man of his age, says that he wished 
he held the same position among his fellow-men that 
Paul held among the Christians. He was killed by Nero 


two years before Peter and Paul received the crown of 
martyrs. 


TO L. ANNAEUS SENECA 67 


The correspondence referred to in the above 
is mentioned also by St. Augustine, £#., 
153, 14 (Migne, Vol. XXXIII, col. 659). It 
consists of fourteen letters, which are given in 
the Teubner edition of Seneca, Vol. ILI, pp. 
476-81. The wish said to have been expressed 
by Seneca is to be found in E#., xi, p.479. The 
letter, however, which Petrarch seems to have 
had in mind—the one describing the persecution 
of the Christians in Rome—is Ep., xii (of. cit., 
p. 480), which I give in full, that Petrarch’s 
state of mind may be the better appreciated. 


Greetings, Paul most dear. Do you suppose that I 
am not saddened and afflicted by the fact that torture 
is so repeatedly inflicted upon the innocent believers of 
your faith ? that the entire populace judges your sect so 
unfeeling and so perpetually under trial as to lay at your 
doors whatever wrong is done within the city? Let 
us bear it with equanimity, and let us persevere in the 
station which fortune has allotted, until happiness ever- 
lasting put an end to our suffering. Former ages were 
inflicted with Macedon, son of Philip, with Dareius and 
Dionysius. Our age, too, has had to endure a Caligula, 
who permitted himself the indulgence of every caprice. 
It is perfectly clear why the city of Rome has so often 
suffered the ravages of conflagration. But if humble 
men dared affirm the immediate cause, if it were per- 
mitted to speak with impunity in this abode of darkness, 
all men would indeed see all things. It is customary to 


68 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


burn at the stake both Christians and Jews on the charge 
of having plotted the burning of the city. As for that 
wretch, whoever he is, who derives pleasure from the 
butchering of men and who thus hypocritically veils his 
real intentions—that wretch awaits his hour. Even as 
all the best men are now offering their lives for the many, 
so will he some day be destroyed by fire in expiation of 
all these lives. One hundred and thirty-two mansions 
and four blocks of houses burned for six days, and on the 
seventh the flames were conquered. I trust, brother, 
that you are in good health. Written on the fifth day 
before the Kalends of April, in the consulship of Frugus 
and Bassus. 


Petrarch elsewhere clearly states that he did 
not think Seneca a Christian, ‘‘tamen haud 
dubie paganum hominem,” in spite of his hay- 
ing been placed by St. Jerome among the 
Christian writers, “inter scriptores sacros”’ 
(Se, XX VL vorewrittenm ine 35 7\5 

The fourteen letters are today considered 
fictitious. Teuffel, par. 289 (and n. g): ‘‘The 
estimation in which the writings of Seneca were 
held caused them to be frequently copied and 
abridged, but also produced at an early time 
such forgeries as the fictitious correspondence 
with the apostle Paul”’ (cf. also Wm. M. Ram- 
say, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman 
Citizen [London, 1898], 4th ed., pp. 353-56). 


IV. TO MARCUS VARRO 
(Fam., XXIV, 6) 


Thy rare integrity, thine activity, and the 
great splendor of thy name urge me to love 
and in fact revere thee. ‘There are some, 
indeed, whom we love even after their death, 
owing to the good and righteous deeds that live 
after them; men who mold our character by 
their teaching and comfort us by their example 
when the rest of mankind offends both our 
eyes and our nostrils; men who, though they 
have gone hence to the common abode of all 
(as Plautus says in the Casina*), nevertheless 
continue to be of service to the living. Thou, 
however, art of no profit to us, or, at best, of 
only small profit. But the fault 1s not thine— 
it is due to Time, which destroys all things. 
All thy works are lost to us of today. And why 
not? ’Tis only of gold that the present age 
is desirous; and when, pray, is anyone a careful 
guardian of things despised ? 

Thou didst dedicate thyself to the pursuit 
of knowledge with incredible zeal and incom- 
parable industry, and yet thou didst not for 

69 


7° PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


that reason abandon a life of action. Thou 
didst distinguish thyself in both directions, and 
deservedly didst become dear to those supremely 
eminent men, Pompey the Great and Julius 
Caesar. ‘Thou didst serve as a soldier under 
the one; to the other thou didst address works 
worthy of admiration and full of the most varied 
learning’—a most remarkable fact when we 
consider that they were composed ’mid the 
widely conflicting duties of war and of peace. 
Thou art deserving of great praise not only 
for thy genius and for thy resolve to keep both 
mind and body in unremitting activity, but also 
for having had the power and the wish to be of 
service both to thy age and to all succeeding 
ages. But alas, thy works, conceived and 
elaborated with such great care, have not been 
deemed worthy of passing down to posterity 
through our hands. Our shameless indifference 
has undone all thine ardor. Never has there 
been a father ever so thrifty but that an 
extravagant son has been able to squander 
within a short time the accumulated savings 
of years. 

But why should I now enumerate thy lost 
works? Each title is a stigma upon our name. 
It is better, therefore, to pass them over in 


TO MARCUS VARRO WI 


silence; for probing only opens the wound 
_afresh, and a sorrow once allayed is renewed 
by the memory of the loss incurred. But how 
incredible is the power of fame! The name 
lives on, even though the works be buried in 
oblivion. We have practically nothing of 
Varro’, yet scholars unanimously agree that 
Varro was most learned.* Thy friend Marcus 
Cicero does not fear to make this unqualified 
assertion in those very books in which he main- 
tains that nothing is to be asserted as positive. 
It is as if the splendor of thy name had dazzled 
him; as if, in speaking of thee, he had lost 
sight of the principles of his school.’ Some 
there are who would accept this testimony of 
Cicero only within the narrow bounds of Latin 
literature, with whom therefore thou, O Varro, 
passest as the most learned of the Romans.°® 
But there are some who include Greek literature 
as well, particularly Lactantius, a Roman most 
famous both for his eloquence and his piety, 
who does not hesitate to declare that no man has 
ever been more learned than Varro, not even 
among the Greeks.’ 

Among thy countless admirers, however, two 
stand out pre-eminently: one is he whom I 
have already mentioned, thy contemporary, 


72 PETRARCHW’S LETTERS 


thy fellow-citizen, and thy fellow-disciple, Cicero, 
with whom thou didst exchange numerous 
literary productions, thus devoting thy leisure 
moments to a useful occupation, in obedience 
to the precepts of Cato.* And if Cicero’s works 
were more long-lived than thine, it must be 
accounted for by the charm of his style. The 
second of thy pre-eminent admirers is a most 
holy man, and one endowed with a divine 
intellect, St. Augustine, African by birth, in 
speech Roman. Would that thou hadst been able 
to consult him when writing thy books on divine 
matters! Thou wouldst surely have become a 
very great theologian, seeing that thou hadst 
so accurately and so carefully laid down the 
principles of that theology with which thou wert 
acquainted. It has been written of thee that 
thou wert such an omnivorous reader as to cause 
wonder that thou couldst find any time for writ- 
ing, and that thou wert so prolific a writer as 
to make it scarcely credible to us that anyone 
could even have read all that thou didst write.*° 
And yet, that I may withhold nothing concern- 
ing the present condition of thy works, I shall say 
that there is not one extant, or at best they are 
only in a very fragmentary state. But I remem- 
ber having seen some a long time ago,** and I 


TO MARCUS VARRO 73 


am tortured by the memory of a sweetness 
tasted only with the tip of the tongue, as the 
saying goes. I am of the opinion that those 
very books on human and divine matters, which 
greatly increased the reputation of thy name, 
are still perchance in hiding somewhere, in 
search of which I have worn myself out these 
many years. For there is nothing in life more 
distressing and consuming than a constant and 
anxious hope ever unfulfilled. 

But enough of this. Be of good cheer. 
Treasure the moral comfort deriving from thy 
uncommon labors, and grieve not that mortal 
things have perished. Even while writing thou 
must have known that thy work was destined 
to perish; for nothing immortal can be written 
by mortal man. Forsooth, what matters it 
whether our work perish immediately or after 
the lapse of a hundred thousand years, seeing 
that at some time it must necessarily die? 
There is, O Varro, a long line of illustrious men 
whose works were the result of an application 
equal to thine own, and who have not been a 
whit more fortunate than thou. And although 
not one of them was thy peer, yet thou shouldst 
follow their example and bear thy lot with 
greater equanimity. Let me enumerate some 


74 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


of this glorious company, for the mere utterance 
of illustrious names gives me pleasure.*? ‘The 
following occur to me: Marcus Cato the censor, 
Publius Nigidius, Antonius Gnipho, Julius 
Hyginus, Ateius Capito, Gaius Bassus, Veratius 
Pontificalis, Octavianus Herennius, Cornelius 
Balbus, Masurius Sabinus, Servius Sulpitius, 
Cloacius Verus, Gaius Flaccus, Pompeius Fes- 
tus, Cassius Hemina, Fabius Pictor, Statius 
Tullianus, and many others whom it would be 
tedious to enumerate, men once illustrious and 
now mere ashes blown hither and thither by 
every gust of wind. With the exception of the 
first two, their very names are scarcely known 
today. Pray greet them in my name, but 
alas, with thy lips. I do not send greetings 
to the Caesars Julius and Augustus and several 
others of that rank, even though they were 
devoted to letters and very learned, and though 
I know that thou wert very intimate with 
some of them. It will be better, I am sure, 
to leave the sending of such greetings to the 
emperors of our own age, provided they are 
not ashamed of their predecessors, whose care 
and courage built up an empire which they 
have overturned. Farewell forever, O illus- 
trious one. 


TO MARCUS VARRO 75 


Written in the land of the living, in the capital of the 
world, Rome, which was thy fatherland and became 
mine, on the Kalends of November, in the year from the 
birth of Him whom I would thou hadst known, the thirteen 
hundred and fiftieth. 


NOTES ON Fam., XXIV, 6, TO VARRO 


1. Plautus, Casina, Prol. 19, 20 (Leo). 

2. The second part, at least, of the Antz- 
quitates, treating of the ‘‘res divinae”’ and 
embracing books xxvi-xli, was addressed to 
Caesar as Pontifex Maximus (cf. below n. 7 
and St. Aug., De civ. dei, VII, 35). 

3. In 1354, the same year in which Petrarch 
received a copy of Homer from Niccolo Sigero, 
Boccaccio sent him a volume containing some 
works of Varro and of Cicero (cf. also Sen., 
XVI, 1). Varro may have been represented 
by either the De re rustica or the De lingua 
latina, or by parts of both. Ina letter of thanks 
for this favor, Petrarch draws a parallel between 
the two authors which is well worth quoting 
(Fam., XVIII, 4): 

No words that I might pen would prove equal to your 
kindness, and I feel sure that I should tire of expressing 
my appreciation much sooner than you of bestowing 
favors. I have received yet another book from you, 
containing some of the excellent and rare minor works 
of both Varro and Cicero. Nothing could have pleased 
nor delighted me more, for there was nothing that I more 
eagerly desired. What made the volume still more 
precious to me was that it was written in your hand. 

76 


TO MARCUS VARRO a4 


In my opinion, this one fact adds you as a third to the 
company of those two great champions of the Latin 
tongue. Blush not at being classed with such illustrious 
men, 

‘‘Nor blush your lips to fill the rustic pipe,” 
as the poet says. 

You express admiration for those writers who 
flourished in the period of classical antiquity, the mother 
of all our studies—and rightly so, for it is characteristic 
of you to admire what the rabble despises and on the 
contrary to disdain what it so highly approves of. Yet 
the time will come when men will admire you perchance. 
Indeed, already has envy begun to signal you out. Men 
of superior intellect always meet with ungrateful con- 
temporaries, and this ingratitude, as you are well aware, 
greatly depreciated for a time the works of the ancient 
authors. But fortunately succeeding generations, which 
at least in this respect were more just and less corrupt, 
gradually restored them to their place. 

You showed, moreover, keen discrimination in gather- 
ing within the covers of one book two authors who, in 
their lifetime, were brought into such intimate relation- 
ship by their love of country, their period, their natural 
inclinations, and their thirst for knowledge. They 
loved each other and held each other in great esteem; 
many things they wrote to each other and of each other. 
They were two men with but one soul; they enjoyed the 
instructions of the same master, attended the same school, 
lived in the same State. And yet they did not attain the 
same degree of honor—’twas Cicero who soared higher. 
In short, they lived together in the best of harmony. 
And believe me, you could bring together few such men 


78 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


from all ages and all races. ‘To follow common hearsay, 
Varro was the more learned, Cicero the more eloquent. 
However, if I should dare to speak my own say as to 
ultimate superiority, and if any god or man would con- 
stitute me judge in a question of such great importance, 
or rather would, without taking offense, deign to listen 
to a voluntary judgment on my part, I should speak freely 
and as my reason dictates. Both men are indeed great. 
My love and my intimate knowledge of one of them may, 
perhaps, deceive me. But the one whom I consider in 
every sense superior is—Cicero. Alas, what have I 
said? To what yawning precipice have I ventured ? 
Oh well, the word has been spoken, the step taken. 
And may I be accused of great rashness rather than of 
small judgment. Farewell. 


4. ‘“‘Doctissimus’’ was as confirmed an epi- 
thet when speaking of Varro as ‘‘crafty”’ of 
Ulysses, ‘‘aged’’ of Nestor, “divus”’ of Augus- 
tus, etc. It is unnecessary to give here quota- 
tions from the Latin authors bearing out 
Petrarch’s statement. Without seeking them 
at all, the following have been encountered in 
the preparation of these notes. St. Augustine, 
De civ. det, III, 4: “vir doctissimus eorum 
Varro;” IV, 1: ‘“‘vir doctissimus apud eos 
Varro et gravissimae auctoritatis;’ IV, 31: 
“Dicit etiam idem auctor acutissimus atque 
doctissimus;” Seneca, ad Helviam, viii, 1; 
Apuleius, A pol., 42. 


TO MARCUS VARRO 79 


5. The reference seems to be a direct one to 
Cicero’s Academica posteriora; but the wording 
proves beyond doubt that our author is quoting 
instead from St. Augustine. Petrarch’s words 
are (Vol. III, p. 275): 


doctissimus Varro est, quod sine ulla dubitatione 
amicus tuus Marcus Cicero in iis ipsis libris in quibus 
nihil affirmandum disputat, affirmare non timuit, ut 
quodammodo luce tui nominis perstringente oculos, 
videatur interim dum de te loquitur suum principale 
propositum non vidisse. 


St. Augustine says (De civ. dei, VI, 2): 

in eis libris, id est Academicis, ubi cuncta dubitanda 
esse contendit, addidit “sine ulla dubitatione doctissimo.” 
Profecto de hac re sic erat certus, ut auferret dubi- 
tationem, quam solet in omnibus adhibere, tamquam de 
hoc uno etiam pro Academicorum dubitatione disputa- 
turus se Academicum fuisset [sic] oblitus. 

The only variation between these two pas- 
sages 1s that Petrarch has substituted for the 
simpler statement of St. Augustine the figure 
of the dazzling light. 

Petrarch, however, did not have a first-hand 
acquaintance with the Ac. postertora. In Rer. 
mem., I, 2, p. 396, the chapter on Varro gives 
the entire substance of the present letter. Ac- 
cording to Ancona-Bacci (Vol. I, p. 514), the 
Liber rer. mem. was composed earlier than 


80 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


1350—the date of this letter to Varro—which 
therefore may have been modeled after the 
corresponding chapter of the Rer. mem., in 
which Ac. post., 1, 3, 9 is cited in full. Hence 
it results that Rer. mem. I, 2 was based on St. 
Augustine, and Fam., XXIV, 6, on Rer. mem. 

6. St. Augustine distinctly says, De civ. det, 
XIX, 22: ‘Varro doctissimus Romanorum;”’ 
and Quintilian, Ivst., x, 1,°95:“* Terentius 
Varro, vir Romanorum eruditissimus.”’ 

4. Lactantius, Divin. Inst.,1,6, 7: Me Varro, 
quo nemo umquam doctior ne apud Graecos 
quidem vixit, in libris rerum divinarum quos 
ad C. Caesarem pontificem maximum scripsit. 
die io.2(CLePeLrarcomVOlsLLL weno 

8. Catonis Disticha, III, 5 (in Poetae latina 
minores, Vol. III): 


Segnitiem fugito, quae vitae ignavia fertur; 
Nam cum animus languet, consumit inertia corpus. 


P. de Nolhac says (II, p. 110, n. 2) that he has 
not found in Petrarch a single reference to the 
Catonis Disticha, which were so widespread in 
the Middle Ages. The above, to be sure, is not 
actually cited by Petrarch, but it does seem to 
give the thought contained in “‘servata ex 
Catonis praecepto ratione oti’ (III, p. 276). 


TO MARCUS VARRO 81 


g. St. Augustine, De civ. dez, VI, 2: 


And although Varro is less pleasing in his style, he 
is imbued with erudition and philosophy to such an extent 
that in every branch of those studies which we today 
call secular and which they were wont to call liberal, 
he imparts as much to him who is in pursuit of knowledge 
as Cicero delights him who is desirous of excelling in 
the choice of words. 


This entire section (VI, 2) is a panegyric, and 
proves St. Augustine a great admirer of Varro. 
unten, «7st ka. «O55 01S smMuChs brieter: 
“plus tamen scientiae conlaturus quam elo- 
quentiae.”’ 

to. Petrarch (Vol. III, p. 276) quotes ver- 
batim from St. Augustine, De civ. det, VI, 2. 
The sense, at any rate, is perfectly clear in both 
passages, but seems to have escaped Fracas- 
setti, who, after correctly rendering ‘tanto 
aver letto da far meraviglia che ti restasse tempo 
di scriver nulla,’ continues, ‘‘e scritto aver 
tanto che non s’intende come trovassi tempo 
per leggere alcuna cosa’”’ (Vol. 5, p. 156). 

We are reminded, too, of Cicero’s similar 
boast regarding his own literary activity at 
Astura in 45 B.c., “Legere isti laeti qui me 
reprehendunt tam multa non possunt quam 
ego scripsi”’ (ad Alt., xii, 40, 2). 


82 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


11. William Ramsay, in Smith’s Dict. of 
Grk. and Rom. Biogr., s. v. “Varro,” says: 

It has been concluded from some expressions in one 
of Petrarch’s letters, expressions which appear under 
different forms in different editions, that the Antiquities 
were extant in his youth, and that he had actually seen 
them, although they had eluded his eager researches at 
a later period of life when he was more fully aware of 
their value. But the words of the poet, although to a 
certain extent ambiguous, certainly do not warrant the 
interpretation generally assigned to them, nor does there 
seem to be any good foundation for the story that these 
and other works of Varro were destroyed by the orders 
of Pope Gregory the Great, in order to conceal the 
plagiarism of St. Augustine. 


And, to the opposite effect, J. A. Symonds, 
The Revival oj Learning, (Scribner, 1900), 
Do" 53; D: este Clumhis Epistle *1o mm VaTrOmiae 
an account of a MS of that author.” P. de 
Nolhac is of the opinion that Petrarch’s remem- 
brances of the Antiquitates went through the 
same evolution as those of the De gloria (cf. 
the second letter to Cicero, n. 10). 

12. With this sentiment compare the words 
of another enthusiastic humanist, John Adding- 
ton Symonds, who writes (Preface, op. cit., 
written in 1877): “‘To me it has been a labor 
of love to record even the bare names of those 


TO MARCUS VARRO 83 


Italian worthies who recovered for us in the 
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries ‘the everlast- 
ing consolations’ of the Greek and Latin 
classics.”’ 


V. TO QUINTILIAN 
(Fam., XXIV, 7) 


I had formerly heard of thy name, and had 
read something of thine, wondering whence it 
was that thou hadst gained renown for keen 
insight. It is but recently that I have become 
acquainted with thy talents. ‘Thy work entitled 
the Institutes of Oratory has come into my 
hands, but alas how mangled and mutilated!" 
I recognized therein the hand of time—the 
destroyer of all things—and thought to myself, 
‘“‘O Destroyer, as usual thou dost guard nothing 
with sufficient care except that which it were a 
gain to lose. O slothful and haughty Age, is 
it thus that thou dost hand down to us men of 
genius, though thou dost bestow most tender 
care on the unworthy? O sterile-minded and 
wretched men of today, why do you devote 
yourselves to learning and writing so many 
things which it were better to leave unlearned, 
but neglect to preserve this work intact ?” 

However, this work caused me to estimate 
thee at thy true worth. As regards thee I had 
long been in error, and I rejoice that I have 
now been corrected. I saw the dismembered 
limbs of a beautiful body, and admiration 

84 


TO QUINTILIAN 8s 


mingled with etief seized me. Even at this 
moment, indeed, thy work may be resting intact 
in someone’s library, and, what is worse, with 
one who perhaps has not the slightest idea of 
what a guest he is harboring unawares.?, Who- 
-soever more fortunate than I will discover thee, 
may he be sure that he has gained a work of 
great value, one which, if he be at all wise, he 
will consider among his chief treasures. 

In these books (whose number I am ignorant 
of, but which must doubtless have been many) 
thou hast had the daring to probe again a sub- 
ject treated with consummate skill by Cicero 
_ himself when enriched by the experience of a 
lifetime. ‘Thou hast accomplished the impos- 
sible. Thou didst follow in the footsteps of 
so great a man, and yet thou didst gain new 
glory, due not to the excellence of imitation but 
to the merits of the original doctrines pro- 
pounded in thine own work. By Cicero, the 
orator was prepared for battle; by thee he is 
molded and fashioned, with the result that 
many things seem to have been either neglected 
or unheeded by Cicero. Thou gatherest all 
the details which escaped thy master’s notice 
with such extreme care that (unless my judg- 
ment fail me) thou mayest be said to conquer 


86 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


him in diligence in just the degree that he 
conquers thee in eloquence. Cicero guides his 
orator through the laborious tasks of legal 
_ pleading to the topmost heights of oratory. 
He trains him for victory in the battles of the 
courtroom. ‘Thou dost begin far earlier, and 
dost lead thy future orator through all the turns 
and pitfalls of the long journey from the cradle 
to the impregnable citadel of eloquence. The 
genius of Cicero is pleasing and delightful, and 
compels admiration. Nothing could be more 
useful to youthful aspirants. It enlightens 
those who are already far advanced, and points 
out to the strong the road to eminence. Thy 
painstaking earnestness is of assistance, 
especially to the weak, and, as though it were a 
most experienced nurse, offers to delicate youth 
the simpler intellectual nourishment. 

But, lest the flattering remarks which I have 
been making cause thee to suspect my sincerity, 
permit me to say (in counterbalancing them) 
that thou shouldst have adopted a different 
style. Indeed, the truth of what Cicero says 
in his Rhetorica is clearly apparent in thy case, 
namely that it is of very little importance for 
the orator to discourse on the general, abstract 
theories of his profession, but that, on the con- 


TO QUINTILIAN 87 


trary, it is of the very highest importance for 
him to speak from actual practice therein.® 
I do not deny thee experience, the second of 
these two qualities, as Cicero did to Hermagoras, 
of whom he was treating. But I submit that 
thou didst possess the latter in only a moderate 
degree; the former, however, in such a remark- 
able degree that it seems now scarcely possible 
for the mind of man to add a single word. 

I have compared this magnificent work of 
thine with that book which thou didst publish 
under the title De causis.s (And I should like 
to say in passing that this work has not been 
lost, that it might result the more clearly that 
our age is especially neglectful of only the highest 
and best things, and not so much so of the 
mediocre.) In such comparison it becomes 
plain to the minds of the discerning that thou 
hast performed the office of the whetstone 
rather than that of the knife,° and that thou hast 
had greater success in building up the orator 
than in causing him to excel in the courts. 
Pray do not receive these statements in bad 
part. For it is as true of thee as of others 
(and thou must be aware of the fact) that a 
man’s intellectual powers are not equally suited 
for development in all directions, but that they 


88 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


will evince a special degree of qualification in 
one only. Thou wert a great man, I acknowl- 
edge it; but thy highest merit lay in thy ability 
to ground and to mold great men. If thou 
hadst had suitable material to hand, thou 
wouldst easily have produced a greater than 
thyself, O thou who didst so wisely develop the 
rare intellects intrusted to thy care! 

There was, however, quite a jealous rivalry 
between thee and a certain other great man— 
I mean Annaeus Seneca. Your age, your pro- 
fessicn, your nationality, even, should have been 
a common bond between you; but envy (that 
plague among equals) kept you apart. In this 
respect I think that thou, perhaps, didst exercise 
the greater self-restraint; for, whereas thou 
canst not get thyself to give him full praise, he 
speaks of thee most contemptuously. I myself 
should hesitate to be judged by an inferior. 
Yet, if I were constituted judge of such an im- 
portant question, I should express this opinion. 
Seneca was a more copious and versatile writer, 
thou a keener; he employed a loftier style, thou 
a more cautious one. Furthermore, thou didst 
praise his genius and his zeal and his wide 
learning, but not his choice nor his taste. Thou 
dost add, in truth, that his style was corrupt, 


TO QUINTILIAN 89g 


and vitiated by every fault.7_ He, on the other 
hand, numbers thee among those whose name 
is buried with them,® although thy reputation 
is still great, and thou hadst been neither dead 
nor buried during his lifetime. For he passed 
away under Nero, whereas thou didst go from 
Spain to Rome under Galba, when both Seneca 
and Nero wereno more. After many years thou 
didst assume charge of the grandnephews of 
Emperor Domitian by his express orders, and 
becamest sponsor for their moral and intellectual 
development.° Thou didst fulfil thy trust, I 
believe, so far as lay in thy power and with 
hopeful prospects in both these directions; 
although, as Plutarch shortly afterward wrote 
to Trajan, the indiscretions of thy wards were 
made to detract from thine own fair name.*° 

I have nothing more to say. I ardently 
desire to find thee entire; and if thou art any- 
where in such condition, pray do not hide from 
me any longer. Farewell. 

Written in the land of the living, between the right 
slope of the Apennines and the right bank of the Arno, 
within the walls of my own city where I first became 
acquainted with thee, and on the very day of our becoming 
acquainted,* on the seventh of December, in the thirteen 
hundred and fiftieth year of Him whom thy master pre- 
ferred to persecute rather than to profess. 


NOTES ON Fam., XXIV, 7, TO QUINTILIAN 


1. Lapo di Castiglionchio gave Petrarch a 
copy of the Institutes in 1350. - (For further 
details see n. 11.) 

2. How very much like a prophecy this reads! 
But it was a most natural exclamation for the 
‘first modern scholar,” who stood at the thresh- 
old of the Renaissance, when so many of the 
classics had as yet to be discovered. 

In a footnote of the Latin edition (Vol. III, 
p. 278), Fracassetti informs us that in one of 
the codices the following remark is added: 
“This turned out to be true, for the complete 
Quintilian was found at Constance.’ This 
refers to the discovery of a complete manuscript 
of Quintilian in 1416. The Florentine scholar 
Poggio Bracciolini, while attending the Council 
of Constance in the capacity of apostolic sec- 
retary, found this copy in an old tower of the 
monastery of St. Gall. It is, perhaps, the same 
as the one now preserved at Florence—the 
Codex Laurentianus. 

The story of the discovery is well told in a 
letter by Poggio. This letter gives such a 

go 


TO QUINTILIAN QI 


faithful picture of the enthusiasm of the human- 
ists, and is of such great interest that, although 
rather a long letter, it has been thought best to 
give a translation of it here in full (from the 
Latin text of Jacques Lefant, Poggiana, Part 


DV ep 0aG00—1 3): 
POGGIO TO GUARINO OF VERONA 


I am well aware that, in spite of your constant occu- 
pations, the receipt of my letters is always a source of 
great pleasure to you—so great is your politeness and 
singular kindness to all. I beg of you, however, to be 
particularly attentive in reading the present. I beseech 
you the more urgently, not because I am the possessor 
of that which even the most learned of men may 
be anxious to share, but rather out of respect due to that 
which I am going to tell you. I feel certain, since you 
are so pre-eminently learned, that the news will bring 
no slight enjoyment to you and to the other scholars. 

For tell me, pray, what is there, or what can there be 
more pleasing, or agreeable, or acceptable to you and 
to others than the knowledge of those things by the study 
of which we become more learned and (what is of even 
greater moment) more discriminating in our likes and 
dislikes? Our great parent, nature, gave to the human 
race a reasoning mind, which we are to consult as our 
guide in the conduct of a good and happy life, than which 
nothing better could be imagined. I am not so sure but 
that, after all, by far the most extraordinary gift of nature 
is the power of speech, without which the reason and the 
intellect were of no avail. 


g2 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


Speech, in giving external expression to the workings 
of the mind, is the one faculty which distinguishes us 
from other creatures. We should therefore consider 
ourselves under deep obligation to all those who have 
developed the liberal arts, but under deepest obligation 
to those who, by their patient and unremitting study, 
have handed down to us the rules of oratory and the 
norms of correct speech. In short, although mankind 
is especially superior to all other living creatures through 
its use of speech, these scholars have striven that in just 
this respect men should excel themselves. 

Many illustrious Roman authors devoted themselves 
to the study and to the development of the human speech, 
as you know. Chief and foremost among them was 
M. Fabius Quintilianus, who describes the method for 
the development of the perfect orator with such clearness, 
and with such characteristic carefulness that, in my 
opinion, he lacked nothing as regards either the broadest 
knowledge or the highest eloquence. Even if we pos- 
sessed nothing of Cicero, the father of Roman eloquence, 
we should still attain to a perfect knowledge of correct 
speech with Quintilian alone as our guide. 

Hitherto, however, among us (and by this I mean 
among us Italians) Quintilian was to be had only in such 
a mangled and mutilated state (the fault of the times, I 
think), that neither the figure nor the face of man was 
to be distinguished in him. [For the parts then missing 
see Sabbadini, Scoperte, p. 13, n. 64.] You yourself 
have seen him [Aen., vi, 495-97]: 


‘“‘His body gashed and torn, 
His hands cut off, his comely face 


TO QUINTILIAN 93 


Seamed o’er with wounds that mar its grace, 
Ears lopped, and nostrils shorn.” 
—(Conington, ed. 1900, p. 195) 


A grievous fact, indeed, and an insufferable, that in 
the foul mangling of so eloquent a man we should have 
inflicted such great loss upon the domain of oratory. 
But the greater was our grief and our vexation at the 
maiming of that man, the greater is our present cause for 
congratulation. Thanks to our searchings, we have 
restored Quintilian to his original dress and dignity, to 
his former appearance, and to a condition of sound health. 
[Andreolo Arese seems to have found a complete Quin- 
tilian in France as early as 1396. See Sabbadini, of. 
cit., pp. 35, 30.] 

Forsooth, if M. Tullius rejoices heartily in having 
secured the return of M. Marcellus from exile, and 
that too at a time when there were at Rome many other 
Marcelli who were just as good men, just as prominent 
and well known both at home and abroad, what are the 
learned men of today (and especially students of oratory) 
to do, seeing that this matchless glory of the Roman 
name (because of whose loss nothing was left except 
Cicero), and that this work, which but recently was so 
mangled and fragmentary, have been recalled not merely 
from exile but from utter destruction ? 

By Hercules, unless we had brought him aid in the 
nick of time, he would have died shortly. There is not 
the slightest doubt that that man, so brilliant, genteel, 
tasteful, refined, and pleasant could not longer have 
endured the filthiness of that dungeon, the squalor of 
that place, and the cruelty of those jailors. He was 


94 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


dejected and shabby in appearance, like unto those who 
have been condemned to death. His beard was unkept, 
and his hair matted with blood. [A quotation of Aen., 
ii, 277.] His very features and dress cried out that he 
was sentenced to an undeserved death. He seemed to 
stretch out his hands to me, to implore the assistance of 
the Quirites to protect him against an unjust judge. 
He seemed to be making an accusation, in that he, who 
once had been the means of safety to so many with his 
resourceful eloquence, could now find not a single patron 
to take pity on his misfortune, not one who would con- 
sult for his safety or prevent his being led out to 
an unmerited end. 

Often by mere chance, things come to pass which 
we do not dare to hope for, as Terence says [Phormio, 
5,1, VSS. 30, 31]. And so Fortune (and not so much his as 
-ours) would have it that, when we found ourselves at 
Constance with nothing to do, a sudden desire should 
seize us of visiting the place where Quintilian was 
imprisoned—the monastery of St. Gall, twenty miles 
away. And so several of us proceeded thither [among 
whom Bartolomeo da Montepulciano and Cencio Rus- 
tici: Sabbadini, op. cit., p. 77] to relax our minds and 
at the same time to search through the volumes of which 
there was said to be a great number. There, among 
crowded stacks of books which it would take long to 
enumerate, we discovered a Quintilian, still safe and 
sound, but all moldy and covered with dust. For the 
books were not in the library, as their merit warranted, 
but in a most loathsome and dreary dungeon at the very 
foundations of one of the towers—a place into which 
not even those awaiting execution would be thrust. 


TO QUINTILIAN 95 


I for one feel certain that if there were any today who 
would tear down these barbarian penitentiaries in which 
such men are held prisoners, and would submit them to 
a most careful search, as our predecessors did, they would 
meet with the same good fortune in the case of many 
authors whose loss we now mourn. 

In addition to the Quintilian, we discovered the first 
three books and half the fourth book of the Argonauticon of 
C. Valerius Flaccus [books i-iv, 317: Sabbadini, op. cit., p. 
78]; and explanations or commentary on eight orations 
of Cicero by Q. Asconius Pedianus, a very eloquent man 
mentioned by Quintilian himself. All these I tran- 
scribed with my own hand, and somewhat hastily [the 
Quintilian in thirty-two days, Burckhardt, p. 189], for I 
was anxious to send them to Leonardo Bruni of Arezzo 
and to Niccoléd of Florence [Niccolé Niccoli, for whom 
he was acting as agent]. 

You have now, my dearest Guarino, all that could be 
given to you, for the present, by one who is most devoted 
to you. I wish I could have sent to you the book as well. 
But I had to please our Leonardo first. Still, you now 
know where it is to be had, so that if you really want 
to have it (which I should judge to be as soon as possible), 
you can easily obtain it. Farewell. 

At Constance, December 16, 1416. 


The real date of the discovery is in June or 
July, 1416; cf. Sabbadini, of. cit., p. 78. 

3. Cic., De inv., 1, 6 exir. 

4. Fracassetti translates this passage, Vol. 
5, p- 160 (at bottom): ‘‘Non io peré, com’egli 


96 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


ad Ermagora, a te vorrei dell’una o dell’altra 
cosa negare il vanto.”” From this rendering, 
one receives the impression that Cicero was 
equally ready to deny Hermagoras both theory 
and practice. Cicero, however, distinctly tes- 
tifies to the theoretical ability of Hermagoras 
in the words ‘‘ quod hic [i. e., H.| fecit,’”’ and just 
as distinctly affirms his lack of experience— 
“ex arte dicere, quod eum minime potuisse 
omnes videmus.”’ The words of Petrarch now, 
therefore, become clear. He says (Vol. III, 
p. 279): “oratori minimum de arte loqui, multo 
maximum ex arte dicere. Non tamen ut ille 
[i.e., Cicero] Hermagorae de quo agebat, sic 
ego tibi horum alterum eripio.”’ 

5. This work has sometimes been wrongly 
identified with the Dialogus de oratoribus, 
which was not known until the fifteenth cen- 
tury. The De causis mentioned by Petrarch 
must be a reference to the collection of Decla- 
mationes which in the Middle Ages passed as 
the work of Quintilian (P. de Nolhac, II, pp. 
84, n. 3, and 85; Teuffel, par. 325 and n. 11). 

6. Horace, Ars Poetica, 304, 305. 

7. These criticisms are to be found in Quin- 
tilian, book x. Since Petrarch uses almost 
the same words, and in fact quotes verbatim 


TO QUINTILIAN 97 


in the last instance, the tenth book (or at least 
this portion of it) must have been part of the 
Quintilian given him by Lapo di Castiglionchio 
(see n. 11). Petrarch says (Vol. III, p. 280): 
“et tu [i.e., Quintilian] quidem ingenium eius 
et studium et doctrinam laudas [Quint., x, 
1, 128], electionem ac iudicium non laudas 
[x, 1, 130]: stilum vero corruptum et omnibus 
vitiis fractum dicis [x, 1, 125].’’ (For the parts 
of the Institutes generally missing in the Middle 
Ages, see Sabbadini, Scoperie, p. 13, n. 64.) 

8. Sen., Conir., x, praej. 2: ‘“ Pertinere autem 
ad rem non puto . . . . quomodo L. Asprenas 
aut Quintilianus senex declamaverit: transeo 
istos quorum fama cum ipsis extincta est.” 
This criticism, evidently, was not spoken by 
Seneca the philosopher, as Petrarch thought, 
but by the elder Seneca, the author of the Con- 
troversiae and Suasoriae. Petrarch has simply 
confused the two, not being aware of the exist- 
ence of the latter. Furthermore, the elder 
Seneca died before or about the time that Quin- 
tilian was born. Hence the criticism could not 
have referred to the author of the Jnstitutes, 
but, perhaps, to Quintilian’s father (who is 
merely mentioned in Quint., ix, 3, 73), or to 
Sextus Nonius Quintilianus, consul in 8 A.D. 


98 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


In either case the identity of this other Quintilian 
remains a doubtful one. 

g. There is no question that Quintilian’s 
pupils were the sons of Flavius Clemens and 
Domitilla the Younger—in other words, the 
grandsons of Emperor Domitian’s sister, and 
hence his grandnephews. ‘The Italian version 
wrongly gives (Vol. 5, p. 162): “i figli di sua 
sorella, nipoti suoi—the sons of his sister, his 
nephews.”’ Petrarch’s Latin reads (Vol. III, 
p. 280): “‘sororis Domitiani principis nepotum 
curam ipso mandante suscipiens.” The con- 
fusion seems to arise from the double function 
of the Italian word ‘“‘nipoti’’ for both ‘nephews’’ 
and ‘‘ grandchildren.” 

to. Plutarch, Moralia (ed. Gregorius N. Ber- 
nardakis), Vol. VII, p. 183, “‘Institutio Traiani, 
Epistola ad Traianum,” 11, 7-16: 

I therefore congratulate you upon your merits, and 
myself upon my good fortune, provided that in the 
exercise of your power you exhibit the same justice and 
honesty which have earned it for you. Otherwise I am 
sure that you will be exposed to serious dangers, and 
that I shall be subjected to the criticism of my detractors. 
For Rome cannot tolerate worthless emperors, and men, 
in their gossiping, are wont to heap upon teachers the 
faults of their pupils. In consequence, Seneca is justly 
censured by those who detract from his Nero, Quintilian 
is justly charged with the rash acts of his wards, and 


TO QUINTILIAN 99 


Socrates is justly accused of having been over-indulgent 
with his pupil. 

Petrarch’s words, ‘‘tuorum adolescentium 
temeritas in te refunditur’’ (Vol. III, p. 280), 
are directly quoted from the pseudo-Plutarch’s 
‘“adolescentium suorum temeritas in Quuin- 
tilianum refunditur.” Cf. also Petrarch, De 
rem., I, 81. 

11. Fracassetti omits to translate this thought, 
though it seems to result clearly from Petrarch’s 
words (Vol. III, p. 280): ‘‘Apud superos . 
ubi primum mihi coeptus es nosci, eoque ipso 
tempore.”’ In. the Latin edition Fracassetti 
notes that in one of the codices in the Lauren- 
tian Library, Lapo di Castiglionchio entered 
the following comment on these words: ‘‘ You 
speak truly, for it was I who presented you with 
that work while you were on your way to Rome 
—a work which, as you said, you had never 
seen before.’”? ‘The omission mentioned above 
seems, however, to have been a mere slip. 
For elsewhere, in speaking of the same occur- 
rence, Fracassetti says (Vol. 2, p. 249): ‘‘a 
lui [Petrarca] Lapo fece la prima volta cono- 
scere, e doné le Istituzioni di Quintiliano, per 
lo acquisto delle quali egli nel giorno stesso 
scrisse una lettera a Quintiliano medesimo.”’ 


Vise LO Miah yoy 
(Fam., XXIV, 8) 


I should wish (if it were permitted from on 
high) either that I had been born in thine age 
or thou in ours; in the latter case our age itself, 
and in the former I personally should have been 
‘the better for it. I should surely have been one 
of those pilgrims who visited thee. For the 
sake of seeing thee I should have gone not 
merely to Rome, but indeed, from either Gaul 
or Spain I should have found my way to thee 
as far as India.* As it is, I must fain be content 
with seeing thee as reflected in thy works—not 
thy whole self, alas, but that portion of thee 
which has not yet perished, notwithstanding 
the sloth of our age. We know that thou didst 
write one hundred and forty-two books on 
Roman affairs. With what fervor, with what 
unflagging zeal must thou have labored; and 
of that entire number there are now extant 
scarcely thirty.’ 

Oh, what a wretched custom is this of wilfully 
deceiving ourselves! I have said ‘“‘thirty,”’ 
because it is common for all to say so. I find, 
however, that even from these few there is one 


100 


TO TITUS LIVY Yor 


lacking. They are twenty-nine in all, constitut- 
ing three decades, the first, the third, and the 
fourth, the last of which has not the full number 
of books.* It is over these small remains that 
I toil whenever I wish to forget these regions, 
these times, and these customs. Often I am 
filled with bitter indignation against the morals 
of today, when men value nothing except gold 
and silver, and desire nothing except sensual, 
physical pleasures. If these are to be considered 
the goal of mankind, then not only the dumb 
beasts of the field, but even insensible and inert 
matter has a richer, a higher goal than that 
proposed to itself by thinking man. But of 
this elsewhere. 

It is now fitter that I should render thee 
thanks, for many reasons indeed, but for this 
in especial: that thou didst so frequently cause 
me to forget the present evils, and transfer me 
to happier times. As I read, I seem to be living 
in the midst of the Cornellii Scipiones Africani, 
of Laelius, Fabius Maximus, Metellus, Brutus 
and Decius, of Cato, Regulus, Cursor, Tor- 
quatus, Valerius Corvinus, Salinator, of 
Claudius, Marcellus, Nero, Aemilius, of Ful- 
vius, Flaminius, Attilius, Quintius, Curius, 
Fabricius, and Camillus. It is with these men 


102 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


that I live at such times and not with the thievish 
company of today among whom I was born 
under an evil star. And Oh, if it were my happy 
lot to possess thee entire, from what other great 
names would I not seek solace for my wretched 
existence, and forgetfulness of this wicked age! 
Since I cannot find all these in what I now 
possess of thy work, I read of them here and 
there in other authors, and especially in that 
book where thou art to be found in thy entirety, 
but so briefly epitomized that, although nothing 
is lacking as far as the number of books is 
concerned, everything is lacking as regards 
the value of the contents themselves.* 

Pray greet in my behalf thy predecessors 
Polybius and Quintus Claudius and Valerius 
Antias, and all those whose glory thine own 
greater light has dimmed; and of the later 
historians, give greeting to Pliny the Younger, 
of Verona, a neighbor of thine, and also to thy 
former rival Crispus Sallustius. Tell them 
that their ceaseless nightly vigils have been of 
no more avail, have had no happier lot, than 
thine. 

Farewell forever, thou matchless historian ! 


Written in the land of the living, in that part of Italy 
and in that city in which I am now living and where thou 


TO TITUS LIVY 103 


wert once born and buried, in the vestibule of the Temple 
of Justina Virgo, and in view of thy very tombstone;5 on 
the twenty-second of February, in the thirteen hundred 
and fiftieth year® from the birth of Him whom thou 
wouldst have seen, or of whose birth thou couldst have 
heard, hadst thou lived a little longer. 


NoTEs ON Fam., xxiv, 8, To T. Livy 


1. Petrarch briefly relates the same story 
in Rer. mem., II, 2, ‘‘De Ingenio.” He says, 


p- 411: 

In what rank, indeed, will Titus Livy be placed, whose 
great reputation for eloquence drew illustrious and admir- 
ing men from the remotest corners of the globe all the 
way to Rome? This is related by Pliny, and in later 
years it was repeated by St. Jerome in the beginning of 
his preface to the book of Genesis, placed thus at the 
beginning that no one might be excused for being igno- 
rant of it. How great must have been the excellence of 
that work, when, over immense distances of land and 
sea, men rushed to the mistress of the world, to that 
city which held sway over conquered nations, not to 
accomplish any urgent business transaction, not because 
of a desire to see the city itself (and that, too, such as it 
must have been under Caesar Augustus), but that they 
might see and hear that single one of its inhabitants. 


Pliny tells the story in /p., 1, 3, 8; but Pliny 
the Younger was an author unknown to Petrarch 
(P, de Nolhac, I, p. 129, n. 1, and/p. 235) n3; 
Sabbadini, Scoperte, p. 26). The reference 
to St. Jerome is E~., 53, written to Paulinus 
ca. 394 A. D., which appears as the first of the 
Praejationes in the 1903 edition of the Vulgate, 


IO4 


TO TITUS LIVY 105 


p. xviii (by Valentinus Loch). Petrarch there- 
fore must have had the letter of St. Jerome in 
mind, or before him. In his own letter to Livy, 
Petrarch mentions both Gaul and Spain. In 
Pliny there is mention of Cadiz only. Both 
Gaul and Spain, however, are mentioned by 
St. Jerome. Furthermore, the references to 
Livy’s being the one great man in Rome at that 
time, and to the splendor of the city under 
Augustus, are both traceable to St. Jerome, 
who, therefore, must have been the source for 
both the passage in the Rer. mem., and for that 
in this letter to Livy. ‘The passage in St. Jerome 
reads as follows, Vol. XXII, col. 541 (ed. Migne): 


Ad T. Livium lacteo eloquentiae fonte manantem, 
de ultimis Hispaniae Galliarumque finibus quosdam 
venisse nobiles legimus; et quos ad contemplationem 
sui Roma non traxerat, unius hominis fama perduxit. 
Habuit illa aetas inauditum omnibus saeculis celebran- 
dumque miraculum, ut urbem tantam ingressi, aliud 
extra urbem quaererent. 


Finally, that this passage from St. Jerome 
was the source used by Petrarch is proved also 
by Sen., XVI (XV), 7 (Op., p. 958): 

St. Jerome records having read that certain prominent 
men undertook the long ‘journey from the furthermost 
limits of Spain and the two Gauls to Rome merely to see 
Livy. Do you for a moment suppose that there was 


106 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


insufficient cause, not merely for these few men, but 
indeed for the whole world to rush thither, that they 
might see the man with their own eyes and hear him 
with their own ears? I shall here omit styling him a pure 
fountain of eloquence, as St. Jerome did (£., 53), or an 
overflowing fountain of eloquence—an epithet which 
Valerius used in speaking of his Pompeius [Val. Max., 
ii, 6, 8. The Pompeius referred to is No. 20 in Smith’s 
Dict. Fracassetti goes entirely astray in the translation 
of this passage, Sen., 2, p. 503]. Still, how commend- 
able a desire was it to see that man who, even if he had 
done nothing else in his life, or if he could have added 
not a single thought to his work, had already earned 
everlasting renown for completing unaided and in 142 
books, that stupendous work containing the entire history 
of Rome from its very origins! Moreover, C. Caligula 
to the contrary notwithstanding (Suet., Cal., 34), this 
work was written throughout in a divine style and with 
extreme care. It was a work approaching the miracu- 
lous. The life of a single man would scarcely suffice 
even to transcribe this work, much less to produce a 
similar one. How worthy a desire was it, then, to behold 
the head which had conceived so much, and the hand 
which had penned such noble words of such noble deeds! 
If T. Livy were alive today, I believe that not merely 
a few, but very many would set out on their pilgrimage 
to him. As for myself, if my health were sounder (as it 
was but recently), if it were as strong as my desires, and 
if the road were safe, I should not consider it irksome 
to seek him, not merely at Rome, but as far as India, 
setting out from this very city of Padua which gave him 
birth and where I have now been staying for many years. 


TO TITUS LIVY 107 


The letter from which the above is quoted 
bears the date Padua, May 12, 1373. 

2. The extent of Petrarch’s acquaintance 
with Livy results even more clearly from a 
passage in another of his works. It is short 
enough to be quoted in full. In Rer. mem., 
I, 2, ‘‘De studio et doctrina,’’ Petrarch, after 


giving examples of native-born Romans, says, 
P. 397: 

And now, in going beyond the walls of the city, we 
need not at once leave the confines of Italy. With what 
ardor must T. Livy of Padua have toiled, who, within 
the compass of 142 books, wrote a complete history of 
Rome from the founding of the city to the reign of Caesar 
Augustus, under whom he flourished? This was a 
work remarkable for its mere bulk; and it was a stupen- 
dous work particularly for this reason—that in composing 
it he did not write hurriedly, nor (as the saying goes) did 
he employ a confused and disordered style, as certain 
others do, who slap down in writing every word that 
happens to be on the tip of their tongue. On the con- 
trary, the history of Livy is couched in sentences of such 
great majesty and in words of such dignity and propriety 
that it is practically a textbook for choice and elegant 
diction. 

But alas! Oh, lasting shame of our age! Scarcely 
a small portion of this great and splendid work survives. 
Of the 14 decades into which it was subdivided—either 
by the author himself, or (as I think more likely) by the 
indolent readers of later generations—there are extant 


108 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


but three! ‘These are the first, the third, and the fourth. 
At the urgent request of King Robert of Sicily (of sacred 
memory), I myself have searched most diligently for the 
second decade, but up to this moment I have searched 
in vain. I pray I may be proved to be a false prophet. 
But unless customs change, I fear lest within a short 
time that very fate overtake Livy which formerly it was 
the intention of Gaius Caligula, most hateful of tyrants, 
to bring upon him. For we read in Suetonius Tran- 
quillus that Caligula had been on the point of removing 
from all libraries the history of T. Livy and the works 
and busts of the poet Vergil. I fear then, that, al- 
though an emperor’s cruelty proved insufficient, our 
own regardless inactivity may gradually succeed in 
casting the veil of oblivion over the resplendent genius 
of this man. 


The reference to Suetonius is Cal., 34, which 
Petrarch quotes almost verbatim, his words 
being: “‘quod T. Livii historiam, et Virgilii 
poetae libros et imagines, parum abfuit, quin 
ab omnibus bibliothecis amoveret.”’ 

3. We are indebted to the excellent study of 
P. de Nolhac so often cited (Pétrarque et ’hu- 
manisme) for exact information on this point. 
The book missing from the manuscript of Livy 
which Petrarch possessed was book xxxiil. On 
fol. 317, in commenting on the words ‘‘ Cynos- 
cephalas, ubi debellatum erat cum Philippo”’ 
(Livy, xxxvi, 8), Petrarch wrote in the margin, 


TO TITUS LIVY 10g 


‘Sed quando hoc fuerat deficit sine dubio, et 
ut puto unus liber.”” Even book xl was not 
complete, although Petrarch may not have been 
aware of the fact, since he does not complain 
thereof. His manuscript ended with the words, 
“conciliabulaque edixerunt”’ (chap. 37) which 
seemed to close the book in a manner mak- 
ing complete sense (P. de Nolhac, II, p. 16). 
Baeumker (Quibus antiquis auctoribus Pe- 
trarca in conscribendis rerum memorabilium 
libris usus sit, p. 14), went so far as to say (in 
1882) that Petrarch did not have books xxxi- 
xxxv. Itis now certain that Petrarch possessed 
the first and the third decades entire, and books 
XXXl, XXxll, and xxxiv to xl, the last of which 
ended with chap. 37—1in all nearly twenty-nine 
books. 

4. Petrarch here refers to the epitome of 
Florus. The Codex in Petrarch’s possession 
contained the works of several historians— 
Dictys, Florus, Livy, etc. (see P. de Nolhac, 
II, p. 15), and had been bought by Petrarch 
at Avignon in 1351, after the death of Soranzio 
(or Soranzo) Raimondo, to whom it had prob- 
ably belonged (zb7d., p. 21). The date of the 
purchase almost compels us to adopt 1351 as 
the date of this letter (see n. 6). 


IIo PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


5. Between the years 1335 and 1344 there was 
found in the monastery of Santa Giustina of 
Padua a sepulchral inscription bearing the 
name of T. Livius. Without troubling them- 
selves with further investigations, the Benedic- 
tine monks who had made the discovery jumped 
to the conclusion that the stone was that which 
had been erected over the dead Roman his- 
torian. They consequently placed it in the 
vestibule of their church, and over it placed a 
likeness of the historian. Petrarch was stop- 
ping at the cloister opposite the church of Santa 
Giustina; thus the phrase employed at the 
close of the letter is clear. 

In 1413 a leaden casket came to light in the 
same place. Inasmuch as the monks had 
learned from those of the previous generation 
that Livy had been buried there, they concluded 
(again without warrant) that the casket must 
contain the remains of Livy, although (as Polen- 
tonus says) there were not lacking, even at that 
time, those who denied the fact. For a descrip- 
tion of the great ado caused by this supposed 
discovery, read the letter by Sicco Polentonus, 
quoted in the introductory note to Corpus 
inscriptionum latinarum, V, 2865. The in- 
scription itself was believed to be that of Livy 


LOSEVEUS*GIVY. ttt 


until the middle of the seventeenth century 
(ucdesNolhacel Rope i 2st. 2). 

6. P. de Nolhac (II, p. 12, n. 3) says that the 
Paris manuscript bears the date 1351 (cf. n. 4 
above). 


VII. TO ASINIUS POLLIO 
(Fam., XXIV, 9) 


Long ago the thought entered my mind of 
addressing letters of familiar intercourse to 
certain far-off masters of eloquence, embracing 
in the number those who had been the rare 
ornaments of the Latin tongue. I should not 
wish, therefore, to pass thy name over in silence, 
the more so that, according to the testimony 
of great writers, thy fame was second to none. 
Since, however, thy reputation has come down 
to us stripped almost bare of facts, it must be 
substantiated by the writings of others rather 
than of thyself, a fact which I deservedly num- 
ber among the shameful losses of our age. I 
shall have, therefore, but little to say to thee. 

I congratulate thee in that thou didst enjoy 
the honors of a consulship as well as those of a 
triumph;* I congratulate thee for the praises 
bestowed upon thy lofty intellect and polished 
eloquence, and for thy many other endowments 
of body and mind and fortune.? I give thee 
special congratulations, however, for having 
lived under the best of princes, who cherished 


Ii2 


TO ASINIUS POLLIO 113 


most dearly both letters and virtues, and who 
was a competent judge of thy deeds. O 
happy thou, who didst fill the just measure 
of thy life while Augustus was still reigning, 
bringing an illustrious life to a peaceful close 
at thy Tusculan villa and in the eightieth year 
of thine age.* Thou didst escape the bloody 
hands of Tiberius, into which the orator Asinius 
Gallus fell, thy ill-fated offspring who, as we 
read, was killed by him with dreadful suffering. 
Fortunate indeed was it that a timely death 
overtook thee, seeing toward what great misery 
thy destiny was already beginning to urge thee. 
Death saved thine eyes from witnessing such a 
sad spectacle at least. Only a few years more 
and, to thy great sorrow, thou wouldst have 
shared the fate of thy son, or wouldst have been 
compelled to look on.’ His death must have 
diminished thy happiness in no slight degree— 
if it be true (as some thinkers claim) that the 
dead are affected by the lot of the living. 

The laws of true friendship forbid me to 
conceal or pass over a certain thing in silence— 
for friendship binds me to the names and ashes 
of the illustrious dead of every age no less 
effectually than if they were alive. The thing, 
therefore, which greatly distressed me in thee 


II4 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


was, that thou didst resolve to be such a very 
bitter and severe critic (not to say censurer) 
of Marcus Tullius.° In all justice thou shouldst 
have been the first to praise and exalt his name 
in thy writings. If thy defense is that thou 
hadst a right to freedom of thought, I shall 
answer that I do not deny thee such freedom, 
even though I do not agree with thy conclusions. 
I maintain, however, that thou shouldst have 
made more sparing use of thy freedom. Such 
counsel comes too late now, I know. Yet thou 
canst easily obtain indulgence from others? 
since thou didst so often exercise the same 
freedom against him who was then ruling the 
universe. ® 

It is rather difficult, I grant thee, for fortune’s 
favorite to curb the mind and the tongue. The 
seriousness of purpose consonant with thy 
great age and learning compels me to exact from 
thee careful consideration in all matters. Fur- 
thermore, it obliges me to censure thee for thy 
actions more severely than I should either thy 
son, who held the same opinions as thou because 
he followed in thy footsteps,? or Calvus and 
others of the same party.*° 

I am not so forgetful of myself as to deny 
thee the exercise of the same privilege in the 


TO ASINIUS POLLIO II5 


case of a contemporary (whom thou couldst 
both see and know) that I have enjoyed, after 
so many centuries, in the case of a man of such 
reputation and so far removed from me in time. 
No one is perfect. Who, then, shall forbid 
thee, a man of such eminence, to call attention 
to anything reprehensible in the ways of thy 
neighbor, when even I who am so far removed 
have found things to criticise in his writings ? 
But the moment thou dost attack his reputation 
for eloquence, the moment thou dost endeavor 
to wrest from him his supremacy in the field 
of oratory—a supremacy bestowed upon him 
from heaven and granted to him without dis- 
pute and by the common consent of nearly the 
entire world—that moment see to it that thou 
be not inflicting too palpable an injury. 
Beware, and with thee let Calvus beware, 
that you do not enter upon an ill-matched 
struggle against Cicero for the palm in oratory. 
It is a very easy task for us to watch the contest 
as spectators. But the crown of victory has 
long since been awarded.** You have been 
conquered. Vain are your struggles and obstruc- 
tions! ‘The ruffling of your own pride prevents 
you from seeing the truth. In my opinion you 
would have been great men, had you been able 


116 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


to acknowledge a greater than yourselves. 
But man, in his pride, is raised by false opinions 
to higher levels than those to which he right- 
fully belongs; and from this high station truth 
then causes him to sink to a lower level than he 
might justly have deserved. Many have lost 
their own reward of glory in hungering after 
that of others. 

It was envy, perchance, that prompted your 
actions, for those of your companions who 
envied Cicero were as numerous as those who 
were blinded by their pride. If so, again am I 
more vexed at thee than at Calvus, for the latter 
had some cause, in fact had good cause, not 
merely for envying Cicero but for hating him.*? 
I know of not the slightest cause for hatred in 
thy case. And therefore it seems all the more 
a pity to me that envy, which is wont to creep 
along the ground, should have seized upon so 
lofty an intellect as was thine. 

Farewell forever. Of the Greek orators, 
give greetings to Isocrates, Demosthenes, and 
Aeschines; of the Romans, to Crassus and 
Antonius, and indeed to Corvinus Messala and 
Hortensius, provided that the former of these 
last two, now that he is rid of the encumbrances 
of the flesh, has regained the memory which 


TO ASINIUS POLLIO 117 
he lost two years before departing hence,** and 
that the latter has not lost his. 


In a suburb of Milan, on the first of August of this 
last age the thirteen hundred and fifty-third year. 


NOTES ON Fam., XXIV, 9, TO ASINIUS POLLIO 


t,pouet., Jel.” (Teubner) p-280,c aia 
‘‘Asinius Pollio orator et consularis, qui de 
Dalmatis triumphaverat, in villa Tusculana 
anno octogesimo aetatis suae moritur’” (St. 
Jerome, Chron., a. Abr., 2020, in Migne, Vol. 
XXVII, col. 441, and Reiff., p. 82). 

2. Some examples of praises bestowed upon 
Pollio are: Catullus, Carm., xii, 9: Horace, 
Carm., Mi, 7,.1336, Quintilan, ex.s eee 
IO, II; X, I, 113 has praise mingled with cen- 
SUIEC: 

Asinius Pollio possesses a well-developed faculty of 
invention, and great accuracy not only of language 
(which to some, indeed, appears too accurate), but also 
of method and of spirit. But he is so far from possessing 
the brilliant and pleasing style of Cicero that he might 
seem to belong to the preceding century. 

Broce Tea Dove: 

4. See Smith’s Dict: 

Tiberius hated him, partly on account of his freedom 
in expressing his opinion, but more especially because 
Asinius Gallus had married Vipsania, the former wife 
of Tiberius. At last the emperor resolved upon getting 
rid of him. In A.D. 30 he invited him to his table at 
Capreae, and at the same time got the senate to sentence 


118 


TO ASINIUS POLLIO 11g 


him to death. But Tiberius saved his life, only for the 
purpose of inflicting upon him severer cruelties than 
death alone. He kept him imprisoned for three years, 
and on the most scanty supply of food. After the lapse 
of three years, he died in his dungeon of starvation, but 
whether it was compulsory or voluntary is unknown. 


The last comment is from Tac., Amn., vi, 
23. The text which Petrarch must have had 
before him (and from which he practically 
quotes), is Suet., Rel. (Teubner), p. 290, ll. 
27f.: “C. Asinius Gallus Asini Pollionis 
filius, cuius etiam Virgilius meminit [in Ecl., 4], 
diris a Tiberio suppliciis necatur.”’ Petrarch’s 
words are (Vol. III, p. 283): “‘quem diris ab 
illo suppliciis enecatum legimus”’ (St. Jerome, 
in Migne, Vol. XXVII, col. 443, and Reiff., 
p. 86). 

5. C. Asinius Pollio died in 5 A. D.; his son 
Gallus died in 33 A.D. (See preceding note.) 

6. Quintilian, xi, 1, 22: 

I pass over those who do not give Cicero and Demos- 
thenes due credit even in oratory. To be sure, Cicero 
himself does not judge Demosthenes absolutely perfect, 
saying that now and then the latter becomes drowsy. 
Cicero is similarly judged by both Brutus and Calvus, 
who criticize the structure of his periods to his own face; 


and by the Asinii, father and son, who in many places 
attack the faults of his language even with bitterness. 


I20 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


Pollio’s hostility to Cicero is mentioned also 
in Sen., Suas., vi, 14; 24; 27. But Cicero was 
not the only author who displeased the taste 
of Pollio; among others were Livy (Quint., 
1, 5, 50; vill, 1, 3), Sallust (Suet., Gramm., 10), 
and Caesar (see n. 8). 

4. Sen., Conir.,1v, prac}. 3: 

(Pollio) was somewhat more ornate when declaiming 
than when pleading a case, .... and his judgment 
was so deficient that in many instances he himself stood 


in need of that indulgence which it was scarcely possible 
for others to obtain from him. 


8. Petrarch’s words are (Vol. III, p. 284): 
‘“‘adversus ipsum mundi Dominum.” It will 
be noticed that Fracassetti prints the word 
“Dominum”’ with a capital letter, thus making 
the phrase equivalent to the word “God.” In 
fact he translates the passage ‘“‘contro lo stesso 
Signore della terra’? (Vol. 5. p. 167), which 
conveys the same thought. Aside from the 
fact that Pollio died in A.D. 5, when it was 
quite too early to speak of Christianity at Rome, 
we believe that the line in Petrarch can easily 
be interpreted otherwise. The key is furnished 
by Suet., Julius, 56: 


Asinius Pollio thinks that Caesar’s books (on the 
Gallic War) were written with small accuracy and with 


TO ASINIUS POLLIO 121 


but little regard for the truth. For, he says, Caesar 
was too ready to believe the accounts of deeds performed 
by others, and published in incorrect form even his own 
deeds, either purposely or because they had slipped his 
memory. Pollio, therefore, was of the opinion that 
Caesar would have rewritten or corrected his work. 


And thus it clearly results that it is Caesar 
who is meant by ‘‘ipsum mundi Dominum.”’ 

g. There is a passage in Gellius written so 
very much after the heart and spirit of Petrarch, 
that the temptation to give it here has been too 
strong to resist. It is Noc. Alt., xvii, I, I: 

Just as there have been in this world some monsters 
of men, who have scattered broadcast unholy and lying 
doctrines concerning the immortal gods, so have there 
been men so monstrous and so destitute of reason as to 
have had the presumption to write of Cicero that his 
language was by no means pure, and that it gave evidence 
of a faulty and inconsiderate choice of words. Among 
these detractors are Asinius Gallus and Largus Licinius, 
whose book is even yet current under the unspeakable 
title of Ciceromastix. 


These words are such as might have been 
spoken by the venerable old gentleman of Fam., 
XXIV, 2. (See the first letter to Cicero, n. 1.) 

Io. Sen., Contr., vil, 4, 6: ‘“‘Calvus who for 
a long time carried on a very unequal struggle 
against Cicero for supremacy in oratory.” 


122 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


11. Petrarch enlarges upon this point in 
Ker. mem,, II,'2, “De ingenio,” p.4r2: 


It does not seem fitting to omit mention of Asinius 
Pollio, who, as Seneca has established and as is apparent 
to all, must be thought to hold the second place of honor 
between those two very eloquent Romans, M. Tullius 
and T. Livy [Sen., Ep., 100, 9]. Seneca is an authority 
by no means to be despised. Thus far in the present 
chapter (Rer. mem., loc. cit.) I have written of six eloquent 
men. Seneca chooses none of these except Tullius, and 
maintains that there are three men foremost in eloquence 
—three whom in a certain letter of his he seems to prefer 
to all others. ‘The second place among these he assigns 
to Pollio, whose style he pronounces different from that 
of Cicero, and (to use his own words) ‘uneven and jolting 
and one that breaks off when you least expect it’ [Ep., 
100, 7]. Although no specimens of his eloquence have 
as yet fallen into my hands, and although his name has 
already become famous and has already spread abroad 
unaided, still it did not appear just to me (when under- 
taking to write on the subject of eloquence) to pass his 
name in silence—the more so that I had already spoken 
of others inferior to him. And so it has pleased me to 
place him after Caesar Augustus, under whom he flour- 
ished. I shall add this only: that many sang the praises 
of Pollio; but that his name was especially honored by 
the Muse of Mantua. But I must now retrace my 
steps somewhat. 


12. This is making it unnecessarily strong. 
Cicero’s statements are more guarded, and 


TO ASINIUS POLLIO 123 


his criticisms are milder, than one would be 
led to suppose from the language of Petrarch. 
In the Brutus, where Cicero speaks of Calvus 
at great length, his language is reserved. In 
sec. 279 he says: 


“T must first, however, do justice to the memory of 
two promising youths, who, if they had lived to a riper 
age, would have acquired the highest reputation for their 
eloquence.” [In 280:] ‘‘You mean, I suppose,” said 
Brutus, ‘‘Gaius Curio and Gaius Licinius Calvus.’’ 
miuneuvery salle. repied slam. (283:] But let us 
return to Calvus, whom we have just mentioned, an ora- 
tor who had received more literary improvements than 
Curio, and had a more accurate and delicate manner of 
speaking, which he conducted with great taste and 
elegance; but (by being too minute and nice a critic 
upon himself) while he was laboring to correct and refine 
his language, he suffered all the force and spirit of it 
to evaporate. In short, it was so exquisitely polished, as 
to charm the eye of every skilful observer; but it was 
little noticed by the common people in a crowded forum, 
which is the proper theater of eloquence. (Translation 
of E. Jones, in the volume translated and edited by 
J. S. Watson.) 


It must be noticed, however, that these pas- 
sages were written after the death of Calvus; 
but we are compelled to judge from these, since 
none of the correspondence carried on between 
Cicero and Calvus on the subject of eloquence 


124 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


is now extant (cf. Cic., ad Fam., XV, 21, 4, with 
which, however, Petrarch was unacquainted). 

ra. Pliny; iV. Al. wily24;cand pies) Crome. 
Chron., a. Abr., 2027 (Migne, Vol. XXVII, coll. 
441, 442, and Reiff., p. 83). From the simi- 
larity of expressions, it again results that St. 
Jerome was the direct source; for in Pliny there 
is no word alluding to the period of two years. 


WAGE OM NOPTBCOUSAS MAU 1M yO CLUE 
(Fam., XXIV, 10) 


O thou whom the Italian world hails as 
prince of the lyric song, to whom the Lesbian 
muse entrusted her lyre with its harmonious 
strings; O thou whom the Tyrrhenian Sea 
stole from the Adriatic, and Etruria from 
Apulia, and whom the Tiber claimed as its 
own, heeding not the cries of the Aufidus, nor 
spurning thy obscure and humble origin; sweet 
is it now to follow thee through secluded wood- 
lands, to gaze upon the spring water bubbling 
up in the dimly lighted dales, to admire the 
purple hills and the verdant meadows, the cool 
lakes and the dewy grottos.? 

It is sweet to go with thee, whether thou dost 
propitiate Faunus with his roaming flocks; 
or eagerly hasten to visit the impetuous and 
fiery Bromius; or perform the secret rites of 
the golden goddess related to the ivy-crowned 
Bacchus; or sing of Venus ever in need of both. 
Tis a joy to accompany thee when thou singest 
of the playful Nymphs and nimble Satyrs and 
of the Graces with their rosy, naked bodies; 


rc 


126 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


or when thou dost sing the name and labors 
of the indomitable Hercules; or of the helmeted 
Mars, another offspring of incestuous Jove. 
Tis joyful to hear thee sing of the Aegis of 
Minerva, spreading terror far and wide with its 
Gorgon-head; or of the children of Leda, who 
sink beneath the waves and are the kind, pro- 
tecting constellation of mariners; or of Mercury, 
the illustrious inventor of the lyre. How 
pleasing is it, when thou dost strike the praises 
of golden-haired Apollo, and dost bathe his 
glorious locks in the waters of the Xanthus; 
to hearken when thou dost extol his sister, 
distinguished by the quiver and striking terror 
to the hearts of the forest denizens, and when 
thou dost disclose the sacred dances of the 
Pierides.* 

Thou dost chisel out the characters of the 
ancient heroes as though in material more last- 
ing than marble. If thou but befriendest one, 
thou dost pen in his behalf fresh words of 
everlasting and enduring praise, such as time 
cannot erase. ‘The spiritual spark of poets is 
of itself sufficient, when kindled by favorable 
impulses, to create undying pictures of men. 
It is due to these pen pictures that we see, as 
though yet alive, those demigods Drusus and 


TO HORATIUS FLACCUS 127 


Scipio and the rest through whose agency far- 
renowned Rome imposed her yoke upon sub- 
jugated races. Among these heroes, like a 
sun gleaming with living light, there shines 
forth pre-eminently the race of the Caesars.‘ 
. Be thou my leader, for I am eager to hear 
thee sing these strains. ‘Take me whither thou 
wilt. Lead me over the broad expanse of the 
sea dotted with sails; to the cloud-encompassed 
peaks of mountains. Take me from the chan- 
nel of the flowing Tiber to where the Anio with 
its banks cuts its way through the fields—a 
region pleasing to thee formerly, when thou 
wert still of the living, and where I, musing, am 
weaving this chaplet for thee, O Flaccus, our 
glory. Lead me whither thou wilt: through 
forbidding forest darknesses, to the cold Algidus, 
to the warm waters of Baiae, the Sabine Lake, 
the fields strewn with flowers, and to Soracte’s 
peak white with snows. Bear me with thee to 
Brundisium by the devious by-paths. I shall 
weary not; I shall gladly guide my slow foot- 
steps in the company of such bards. Neither 
time nor tide will swerve me from my purpose. 
I shall march with equal vigor, if mother Earth 
be great with crops yet unharvested, or the dew 
be dried by the scorching rays of the sun, or 


128 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


the branches bend beneath their weight of fruit, 
or the earth be stiff and slow with cold. Under 
thy leadership I shall visit the shores of the 
Cyclades, the roaring waves of Thracian Bos- 
porus, the lonely deserts of torrid Lybia, and 
the cold, stormy regions of far-off Caucasus.5 

Wherever thou goest, whatever thou doest, 
pleases me. I am pleased when thou dost so 
carefully rouse thy faithful friends by giving 
virtue its due reward; when thou rendest vice 
with gnashing teeth, and when, smiling, thou 
dost artfully peck at folly. I am pleased when, 
singing sweetly, thou fillest thy song with tender 
words of love; when with sharp and vigorous 
pen thou upbraidest the riotous living of the 
old wanton; or when thou dost arraign the guilty 
city and dost accurse the drawn swords and 
savage frenzy of the Quirites. I rejoice when 
Maecenas is the burden of thy song—through- 
out thy work the first and last; when thou dost 
criticise the poets of the older school and dost 
disdain to tread in their footsteps; when thou 
pourest into the ears of magnanimous Caesar 
praises of his newly won honors. I am glad 
when, in one of thy poems, thou explainest to 
Florus thy reasons for declining to write any 
more satires or lyrics; when thou describest 


TO HORATIUS FLACCUS 129 


to Fuscus the joys of a country life and the evils 
of a turbulent city, and explainest to him why 
the warlike steed is the servant of man; glad, 
when thou teachest Crispus the true use of 
wealth. I am pleased when thou dost tear 
Vergil away from his unending grief and gently 
dost urge him to enjoy some relaxation and a 
few moments of pleasure at the coming of spring; 
when thou admonishest Hirpinus of the flight 
of time. I am pleased when thou remindest 
Torquatus and, in a similar ode, Postumus of 
the fleeting days and nights; when thou writest 
of old age stealthily creeping upon us all with 
noiseless tread, of the shortness of life which 
is gone even as we write, or of death which 
hastens after us with flying feet.° 

Who would not enraptured listen when thou 
assignest Augustus (though still alive) to a place 
among the stars ? or when, in accoutering Mars, 
thou declarest the inadequacy of iron and hast 
recourse to adamant ? or when, as a conqueror, 
thou drivest along the Sacred Way and Hill, 
dragging bands of foreign princes bound to the 
triumphal chariots with fetters of gold, a vic- 
torious pomp which, feared and detested by a 
certain proud queen, caused her to welcome the 
inexorable sting of the asp? Who would not 


130 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


lend thee a willing ear, when thou recountest 
how the laws of hospitality were dishonored 
by the treacherous shepherd of Phrygia, and 
how from the quieted waves there came to 
Paris the threatening prophecy of Nereus? 
or how Danae is deceived by the shower of gold ? 
or how the royal maiden, in spite of her grievous 
laments, is borne away on the back of the horned 
adulterer ?’ 

Whether happy or alarmed, whether sad or 
angered, under any and all conditions thou dost 
give pleasure: either when thou frettest the 
anxious lover with manifold suspicions; or 
hurlest just imprecations on the snake-haired, 
poisonous hags and on the vulgar herd; when, 
free from cares, thou singest of Lalage; or 
when alone and with unruffled brow thou dost 
put to flight that desperate wolf; or when thou 
escapest the fall of the ill-omened tree, and the 
waves which had been lashed to fury by Aeolian 
winds. *® 

When I saw thee reclining upon the fresh 
turf, hearkening to the bubbling of the springs 
and to the songs of the birds, when I saw thee 
plucking the flowerets from the matted field, 
weaving the vinesprigs with the pliant osiers, 
touching the lyre with gentle fingers, changing 


TO HORATIUS FLACCUS sams Be a 


the measures with splendid mastery, and sooth- 
ing heaven itself with thy varied song—when 
I saw all this my eager mind suddenly became 
the prey of a noble desire, which spared me not 
till I had followed thee through all the recesses 
of the heaving sea, over cliffs and crags, ’mid 
the perils of sea and land. On the remotest 
confines of India I saw arise the gleaming steeds 
of the sun, and then did I behold them sink in 
the Western Ocean. In thy company I have 
roamed across the regions of the north wind 
and across the regions of the south wind. And 
now, whether thou leadest me to the Islands of 
the Blessed, or draggest me to wave-resounding 
Antium, or takest me to the citadels of Romulus, 
I shall follow thee with most eager mind, so 
happily am I drawn captive by the chords of 
thy lyre, so soothing is to me the bitter sweetness 
of thy pen.° 


NOTES ON Fam., XXIV, 10, TO HORATIUS 
FLACCUS 


1. This letter (as also the following one to 
Vergil) is written in verse, and is translated 
into verse by Fracassetti, who assigns to it the 
date 1337 or 1350. The chances are in favor 
of the later date; for Petrarch himself says 
(in the prefatory letter to Socrates, Vol. I, p. 25) 
that the letter he addressed to Cicero (fam., 
XXIV, 3, dated 1345) served as a precedent 
for the other letters to the classical authors. 
The letters to Horace and to Vergil really belong 
to the Epistolae Poeticae, the collection of which 
was dedicated to Barbato da Sulmona (Fam., 
praefatio, I, pp. 15, 16, and Fam., XXII, 3). 
Their presence here, then, must be due to the 
subject-matter. 

A mere glance at the letter will reveal to the 
reader Petrarch’s intimate knowledge of the 
complete works of Horace. Fracassetti says 
in this regard (Vol. 5, p. 177) that he did not 
trace the many allusions to their sources, because 
such labor would have proved utterly useless 
to one already acquainted with the works of 


132 


TO HORATIUS FLACCUS 133 


Horace, and would have been of very doubtful 
assistance to one who did not possess such 
knowledge. The nature of this study, however, 
demands the presence of the following notes. 
They will not be read, of course. ‘They are 
given merely for the sake of reference and of 
completeness. 

One word more. The allusions are so numer- 
ous that it has been thought best to give at the 
end of each paragraph the references to all the 
allusions contained therein. To facilitate iden- 
tification, each reference is introduced by a 
caption of one or more words. 

2. “‘secluded woodlands,” Carm., i, 17, 17; 
Epod., ii, 11. 

See eaunlisy, OOP ael G7 jily TO? ee bro- 
mius,”’ zbzd., li, 19; ili, 25; ‘‘secret rites,” zbzd., 
lll, 2; “‘ivy-crowned,”’ zbid., ili, 25, 20; iv, 8, 
Bane ue becds Ou spot, t070% 178,63. 32) 9: 
iva ee ea Cl eeecrence mln. lv, 's.\ 6s 
PINYMDNS ee GOA, oatyrs,’: tbid.;.1, 1, 
31; “naked bodies,” zbid., iii, 19, 17; iv, 7, 6; 
Ribletculesua07d ni leem2ron lve 6.207. 8, 30; 
elaisye 10t0. 1.82 30.8 sonecis,.” ibid... 1, 15, 
De wlll vet yes Aime eC demntOd i112, 20° '° con® 
stellation,” 2bzd., i, 12, 27, 28; iii, 29, 64; iv, 
Rs Ebel Vice Us retesLOn Ooms wanthus,”? 407d1 


134 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


iv, 6,°203% ‘‘ quiver,” 201d, 111, 4,°972; 2. telrons 
1000;, 1, 12, 22. 

Acta? Drusus;’ “Carm. av, 4p alo pel ee 
“ocipio,”’ Sat., ii, 1, 17 and 72;** shines fortasm 
Carm., 1, 12, 46-48. 

5. “glory,” Carm., 1, 1,°2; “Algidus,’> abe 
7 2 (a9 >) ¥ = fe 
1,-21)5.0; warm waters: p7st..o1, 1 5 ee 
‘Sabine lake,” Carm., Iv, 4, 10)) “‘Soractem 
ab1d., 1, 9}* 1 ‘and “2;)\ Brundisium;?? Salaam 
5; “slow with cold,” cf. Carm., ii, 23, 5-8; 
lV, -7,- 90-1235 *Cyclades,’" Carm,c1, a14smeoe 
ili, 28,14; ;°“ Bosporus,? 27d.; )11, 9 20;-tae 
il, 4, 30; ‘“Lybia,” <abid.; 1, 22, 5 andi. 
li,-6,.3 andi 43" *‘ Caucasus,’?47b70.7) 122 yee 
Ee pod tare: 

6: "i wanton,” 2 Carm.,41, 25% lly, 15 }1y, alee 
“drawn swords,” Epod., 7 and 16; ‘school,’ 
Sat.,1, 4. and 10; “footsteps,” Hpist., 1, 19, 21- 
25-8Cl..Carm., il, 30, 132% “honors, 7) Gags 
iil, 25, 7, 8;. ‘Florus,” Lpist. i, 2 “Puscuses 
Fepist., -1,;~10;7 “steed,” LE PIst, 1, 10,434 ame 
“Crispus, .Carm., 1, 25° *' Vergil,’*2b1d. ee 
“pleasure,” \2bid.,; 1v, 12; -“Hirpmus2 7s 
ii,,1r; .“‘ Torquatus,’” 2bzd., 1v, 7; * Postumiuses 
z01d,e11' ‘14; ‘fleeting days’? 2bid.c1vy Tore 
cf; i, 28, 6; “‘shortness of life,” 2bzd_j vy ra; 
22° Gr ally Oy 07; “LepISt;. Al, a, p44 


TO HORATIUS FLACCUS 135 


write,’ Carm.,; i, 11, 7; ‘‘flying feet,” 2b7d., 
Die Ate Crelle liso, 

Pom ACUsiiset Gorrie sell. 12.) 25,03 
‘adamant,’ 2bzd., 1, 6, 13; “‘sacred_hill,”’ zdzd., 
iv, 2, 35; “‘fetters,’’ Epod., vu, 8; “‘detested,”’ 
Carm.,.1, 37, 323. “asp,” 20td., 1, 37, 28; ‘‘shep- 
herd,’’ zbid., i, 15, 1, 2; ‘‘quieted waves,”’ zbid., 
iets +) opropnecy,, 4 207d.5-1;:15, 5+. Danae,” 
ibid., ili, 16; ‘‘royal maiden,’ zbid., ili, 27, 
25 ff. 

Damnags lod. vars elds IC ari, alle 1G; 
AO; ld.) s  walagesand-woll,” )207d.9 1, 22° 
mLLCOMMLUIA ATi Clon Laie alll, An 27 shee, 

GaseilesheturiyGormiies Wet) 2050 1 nian Ge 
Epod., ii, 23; “‘springs,” Carm.,i, 1, 22; Epod., 
li, 25 and 27; ‘‘birds,”’ zb7d., 11, 26; ‘‘flowerets,”’ 
Memon weteldy 61070924: lyre, Carm,, 1; 
Rep sAoe Wid ae depist.ole tT, 45; cl. Carm., 1, 
37,0; il, 24, 2; “gleaming steeds,” Carm. 
DUG ee wesletnaWcealut Garyt.. 1; 31,14 
Epod., 1, 13; “Islands of the Blessed,”’ Carm., 
iv, 8,27; Epod., xvi, 42; ““Antium,”’ Carm., i, 35; 
eCtLAGe Sim 7070. Ii O22 1. GOrM. Saec.,.65° 
Garms 1; 2}.2: 


IX. TO PUBLIUS VERGILIUS MARO 
(Fam., XXIV, 11) 


O illustrious Maro, bright luminary of elo- 
quence and second hope of the Latian tongue, * 
fortunate Mantua rejoices in so great a son as 
thou, rejoices in having brought to light an orna- 
ment to the Roman name that will continue to 
adorn it throughout the centuries. What region 
of earth or what circle of Avernus arrests thee 
now? Does a swarthy Apollo play for thee on 
a harsh and grating lyre, and do the sable sisters 
now inspire thy verses? Dost thou soothe the 
Elysian groves with thy tender song, or dost thou 
dwell upon a Tartarean Helicon? And, O 
fairest of bards, does Homer, who was of one 
mind with thee, roam about in thy company? 
Orpheus and the other poets wander alone 
o’er the meadows, singing the praises of Phoe- 
bus—all except those whom a self-inflicted 
and violent death, or servile homage to a cruel 
lord has banished to other regions. Among 
them there is no place for Lucan, whom a cruel 
emperor drove to a wished-for death. His fear 
of torture and his abhorrence of a shameful 

136 


TO PUBLIUS VERGILIUS MARO 137 


death proved victorious, and he ordered the 
physician to open his veins.?_ A similar death 
took off Lucretius, whose savage fury (they 
say) compels him to dwell in far other regions 
than thou, Vergil. 

And so, who are thy present companions? 
What life dost thou live? ‘These are the ques- 
tions I should gladly hear thee answer. And 
how near the truth were thy earthly dreams and 
imaginings? Hast thou been welcomed by 
the wandering Aeneas, and hast thou passed 
through the ivory portal by which he found 
exit ?* Or, rather, dost thou dwell in that quiet 
region of heaven which receives the blessed, 
where the stars smile benignly upon the peace- 
ful shades of the illustrious? Wert thou re- 
ceived thither after the conquest of the Stygian 
abodes and the plundering of the Tartarean 
regions, on the arrival of that Highest King who, 
victorious in the great struggle, crossed the 
unholy threshold with pierced feet, and, irre- 
sistible, beat down the unyielding bars of hell 
with His pierced hands, and hurled its gates 
from their horrid-sounding hinges? All this 
should I like to learn from thee. 

If the shade of anyone lately of this world of 
ours should perchance visit thee in the silent 


138 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


world, receive from him news which I have 
intrusted to him. Learn from him the present 
condition of three cities dear to thee, and the 
treatment which has been accorded to thy 
three works. 

Parthenope is in grief. Widowed, she mourns 
the death of King Robert. One day has robbed 
her of the fruits of many years, and now her 
people are held in suspense and are threatened 
with an uncertain fate.* The sins of the few 
are visited upon an innocent population. Man- 
tua, best of cities, is ceaselessly tossed by the 
disturbances of her neighbors; but, shielding 
herself behind her great-souled leaders,° she 
scorns to submit her unconquered head to the 
yoke, rejoicing in her own compatriot lords 
and ignorant of the rule of the stranger. It 
is in this city that I have composed what thou 
art now reading. It is here that I have found 
the friendly repose of thy rural fields. I con- 
stantly wonder by what path thou wert wont 
to seek the unfrequented glades in thy strolls, 
in what fields wert wont to roam, what streams 
to visit, or what recess in the curving shores 
of the lake, what shady groves and forest fast- 
nesses. Constantly I wonder where it was that 
thou didst rest upon the sloping sward, or that, 


TO PUBLIUS VERGILIUS MARO 139 


reclining in thy moments of fatigue, thou didst 
press with thy elbow upon the grassy turf or 
upon the marge of a charming spring. Such 
thoughts as these, O Vergil, bring thee vividly 
before my eyes. 

Thou hast heard the fortune of thy native 
city, hast heard also what degree of peace hovers 
about thy grave. But what is taking place in 
Rome, our common mother—this, O Vergil, 
pray do not seek to know.’ Believe me, ’tis 
better not to know. Lend thine ear, therefore, 
to more pleasing news and learn of the great 
success of thy works. Learn that Tityrus, 
though older, continues to blow upon the slender 
reed-pipe; that thy small holding is still joyful 
with its crops, thanks to thy fourfold work; 
that Aeneas lives, and gives pleasure with his 
song throughout the world. Yea, Aeneas lives, 
notwithstanding that death, envious of thy great 
and noble beginnings, overtook thee as thou 
wert so earnestly endeavoring to raise him to 
the skies. The Fates were on the point of fasten- 
ing their clutches upon the unhappy Aeneas. 
Condemned by thine own lips, he was about to 
depart from us when once again the mercy of 
Augustus snatched him from these second 
flames, him who seemed destined to be destroyed 


140 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


by fire? Augustus was not moved by the 
dejected spirits of his dying friend, and justly 
will he be praised by all succeeding generations 
for having disregarded thy last wishes. Fare- 
well forever, O beloved one; and pray greet 
in my behalf thy elders, Homer and the Ascraean. 


NOTES ON Fam., XXIV, 11, TO VERGIL 


1. An allusion by Petrarch to the statement 
which he himself makes in the second letter 
to Cicero, Fam., XXIV, 4. (Consult n. 6 of 
that letter.) 

2. St. Jerome, Chron., (Migne, Vol. XXVII, 
coll. 453, 454): ‘‘M. Annaeus Lucan of Cor- 
dova, a poet, having been detected as partici- 
pating in the conspiracy of Piso, held out his 
arm to the physician that his veins might 
be opened.” This statement was taken from 
Suetonius (Rel., p. 299, Il. 1o-12 [Teubner]), 
who gives the further detail that Lucan commit- 
ted suicide at the close of a splendid banquet— 
‘“‘epulatusque largiter”’ (oP. cit., p. 300, ll. 3, 4; 
Reifferscheid, Rel., p. 52, ll. 1, 2). The state- 
ment of the commentator Vacca on the subject— 
“venas sibi praecidit” (Reiff., op. cit., p. 78, 
]. 6)—cannot be considered the source of Pe- 
trarch’s “‘arterias medico dedit ille cruento” 
(Vol. IIT, p. 291, 1. 2), because the word ‘‘me- 
dicus”’ does not appear therein, as it does in the 
passage cited from St. Jerome (Suetonius). 

3. Again St. Jerome is the authority. Chron., 


I41 


142 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


(Migne, Vol. XXVII, coll. 425, 426): ‘Titus 
Lucretius the poet is born, who in later years 
went mad because of a love philter. And 
although in the intervals of lucidity he composed 
several books (which Cicero afterward cor- 
rected), he committed suicide in the forty-fourth 
year of his age.” 
4. Aeneid, vi, 898, and Conington’s trans- 
lation, p. 215: 
Conversing still, the sire attends 
The travellers on their road, 


And through the ivory portal sends 
From forth the unseen abode. 


5. Queen Joanna (the granddaughter and 
successor of King Robert, who died January 
19, 1343) had been espoused while still a child 
to her cousin Andrew. ‘The latter’s manners 
were rough and uncouth and “‘more worthy 
of his native country, than of that polished court 
wherein he had been bred.” After being 
tolerated for some time, he was one night seized, 
strangled, and thrown out of a window of the 
Castle of Aversa (September 18, 1345). Queen 
Joanna was at once accused of having been privy 
to the crime, although there was no actual proof 
to that effect. To avenge Andrew’s death, his 
brother, Louis I the Great, king of Hungary 


TO PUBLIUS VERGILIUS MARO 143 


and Poland, successfully invaded the kingdom 
of Naples in the end of 1347. The Black 
Death obliged him to return to his own country 
the following year, whereupon Queen Joanna 
returned, and carried on a desultory warfare 
with the Hungarian party in Naples. In 1350 
King Louis made a second expedition against 
Naples, but he soon found it more difficult to 
retain the kingdom than it had been to conquer 
it. And since affairs at home required his 
presence, he agreed to a treaty in 1351 and 
left Naples. The city was soon recovered by 
Queen Joanna (in 1352) whose reign continued 
for many years, undisturbed by any attack of 
a foreign enemy (Hallam, Vol. I, pp. 347, 348, 
and Lodge, The Close oj the Middle Ages, pp. 
152, 153). The period of suspense mentioned 
by Petrarch must, therefore, have been from © 
the assassination of King Andrew (1345) to 
the treaty agreed upon in 1351, which accords 
fully with the date 1349 assigned to this letter 
by Fracassetti (Vol. 5, p. 182). 

6. The family of the Gonzaga. After the 
murder of Rinaldo Buonacolsi (surnamed Pas- 
serino) and after the defeat of his followers 
(1328), Luigi Gonzaga became captain-general 
of Mantua. This dignity was confirmed as 


144 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


a hereditary title by Louis IV of Bavaria, who 
in 1329 nominated him imperial vicar. Luigi 
thus became Louis I, the founder of a new ducal 
house which furnished the lords of Mantua 
uninterruptedly for four centuries. ‘The direct 
line became extinct in 1708. 

In 1348 the sons of Louis I of Mantua, 
Filippino and Guido, defeated the allied forces 
of the Visconti, Scaligeri, and Estensi, under 
the command of Lucchino Visconti at Borgo- 
forte, a village fourteen kilometers south of 
Mantua, and beat back the Milanese a second 
time in 1357. ‘The praise bestowed by Petrarch 
must have been due to the victory won by the 
Gonzaga in 1348. And a truly remarkable 
victory it was, considering the great success 
which attended the efforts of the Visconti to 
bring the ruling houses of Italy under the power 
of the Viper (cf. J. A. Symonds, The A ge oj the 
Des pots [London 1897], pp. 113, 114). 

7. Petrarch was most sadly disappointed in 
Rienzo’s failure and the consequent anarchy 
at Rome. 


Rome was again agitated by the bloody feuds of the 
barons, who detested each other and despised the com- 
mons; their hostile fortresses, both in town and country, 
again rose and were again demolished; and the peaceful 


TO PUBLIUS VERGILIUS MARO T45 


citizens, a flock of sheep, were devoured, says the Floren- 
tine historian, by these rapacious wolves. But, when 
their pride and avarice had exhausted the patience of 
the Romans, a confraternity of the Virgin Mary protected 
or avenged the republic; the bell of the Capitol was again 
tolled, the nobles in arms trembled in the presence of an 
unarmed multitude; and of the two senators, Colonna 
escaped from the window of the palace, and Ursini was 
stoned at the foot ofthe altar” (Gibbon, Vol. VII, 


Dp. 270). 


And with equal eloquence, Gregorovius exclaims 
(Vol. VI, Pt. I, pp. 318, 319): 

The unlucky fugitive (Rienzo), however, cherished 
one satisfaction; this was the state of wild anarchy to 
which the city had reverted, after having enjoyed peace 
and order under his government. Disunion prevailed 
among both people and nobility; family wars both 
within and without; robbery and crime in every street. 


8. The story of Vergil’s dying wish to burn 
the Aeneid is well known. Petrarch learned 
it from Donatus. Also the statement concern- 
ing the command of Augustus is to be found in 
Donatus (Vita Verg., XV, 56, p. 63 R), who 
cites the verses by Sulpicius containing the 
allusion to the rescue of the Aeneid from. these 
"second flames” (op. cit., 547, p. 63 R: ‘et 
paene est alio Troia cremata rogo.’”? Compare 
Baehrens, Poetae latini minores, Vol. IV, p. 182, 


146 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


No. 184, where the lines are ascribed to Servius 
Varius). 

Petrarch, moreover, knew the story of the 
rescue also from the famous poem ‘‘Ergone 
supremis,”’ to which he makes two distinct refer- 
ences: one in Epistolae Poeticae, II, 3, last 2 
verses, Opera, ITI, p. go (P. de Nolhac, I, p. 125, 
n. 1, and Sabbadini, Rend. del R. Ist. Lomb., 
[1906], p. 197); the other in a marginal note to 
Servius’ life of Vergil, at the words “‘hac lege 
lussit emendare,”’ where Petrarch says, ‘‘Super 
hoc elegantissimo carmine se excusans.”’ ‘This 
is a Clear reference to the poem “ Ergone supre- 
mis”? (Sabbadini, of. cit., p. 194). 

This oft-mentioned poem is cited in the inter- 
polated version of Donatus’ life of Vergil (XV, 
58, p. 63 R). But it has already been proved 
doubtful whether Petrarch was acquainted 
with this version. (See above, second letter 
to Cicero, n. 6.) Hence it is more probable 
that Petrarch knew the ‘“‘Ergone supremis”’ 
directly from the Anthologia (Baehrens, op. cit., 
Vol. IV, p. 179, No. 183, and Sabbadini, oP. cit., 
p- 198). 

Petrarch knew of two additional sources for 
the story. He refers to Macrobius (I, 24, 6), 
in a marginal note to Servius’ “ praecepit incendi. 


TO PUBLIUS VERGILIUS MARO 147 


Augustus vero,” saying, ‘“‘de hoc Macrobio”’ 
(Sabbadini, of. cit., p. 193). And lastly, though 
Petrarch nowhere makes direct reference to it, 
he may have used also Pliny, NV. #., vii, 30, 31. 
Summary of sources in order of importance: 
Anthologia Latina, Macrobius, Donatus. 


xX. TO HOMER 
(Fam,., XXIV, 12) 


I have long desired to address thee in writing, 
and would have done so without hesitation if 
I had had a ready command of thy tongue. 
But alas! Fortune was unkind to me in my 
study of Greek.* Thou, on the other hand, 
seemest to have forgotten the Latin which it 
was formerly customary for our authors to bring 
to thy assistance, but which their descendants 
have failed to place at thy disposal.? And 
so, excluded from the one and the other means of 
communication, I kept my peace. 

One man has once again restored thee to our 
age asa Latin.? Thy Penelope did not longer 
nor more anxiously await her Ulysses than I - 
thee. My hopes, indeed, had been deserting 
me one by one. Excepting the opening lines 
of several books of thy poem,* wherein I beheld 
thee as one sees, from a distance, the doubtful 
and rapid look of a wished-for friend, or perhaps, 
catches a glimpse of his streaming hair—with 
this exception, then, no portion of thy works 
had come into my hands in Latin translation. 

148 


TO HOMER 149 


Nothing, in fine, warranted the hope that I 
might some day behold thee nigh at hand. For 
that little book which commonly passes as thine, 
though it is clearly taken from thee and is in- 
scribed with thy name, is nevertheless not 
thine.* Who the author of it may be is not 
certain. That other person (to whom I have 
already referred) will restore thee to us in thy 
entirety, if he lives.° Indeed, he has already 
begun his task, in order that we may derive 
pleasure not merely from the excellent contents 
of thy divine poem, but also from the charms 
of conversing with thee. ‘The Greek flavor has 
recently been enjoyed by me from a Latin 
flagon.7 K 
This experience brought forcibly home to 
me the fact that a vigorous and keen intellect 
can all things. Cicero was, in many instances, 
merely an expounder of thy thoughts; Vergil 
was even more frequently a borrower; both, 
however, were the princes of the Latin speech. 
And though Annaeus Seneca assert that Cicero 
loses all his eloquence when dabbling in verse 
and that Vergil’s felicity of expression deserts 
him when venturing into the realms of prose,® 
still I maintain that it is but right that each of 
them be compared with himself and not with 


150 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


the other. From such comparison it would 
clearly result that each should be considered 
as having fallen below his own highest level. 
Judged by themselves, I insist that I have read 
verses of Cicero that are not mere doggerel, 
and prose letters of Vergil that are not 
disagreeable.° 

I am now experiencing the same emotions 
in thy case, for thy great work, too, is a 
poetical masterpiece. In obedience to the 
maxim laid down by St. Jerome (a Latin author 
of exceptional skill in languages), I wrote once 
upon a time that if thou wert to be translated 
literally, not merely into Latin prose, but even 
into Greek prose, from being most eloquent 
of poets thou wouldst be made of none effect.*° 
Now, on the contrary, thou dost still retain thy 
hidden power to please, though turned into 
prose, and what is more, into Latin prose.** 
This fact compels admiration. Whatever, 
therefore, may be said of me, let no one marvel 
that I have addressed Vergil in verse, but thee 
in the more tractable and yielding prose.*? 
Him I addressed of my own free will; in thy 
case, lam answering a letter received.** Fur- 
thermore, with Vergil I employed the idiom 
which we possessed in common; with thee I 


TO HOMER I51 


have adopted, not thy ancient language, but 
a certain new speech in which the letter I 
received was couched, a speech which I use 
daily, but which is not, I suppose, the one to 
which thou art accustomed. 

But after all, why should I dignify my talk 
with both of you by giving it the name conver- 
sation? Our very best must appear to you 
mere prattle and chattering. Ye are unap- 
proachable; ye are more than mortal, and your 
heads pierce the clouds. Yet it is with me as 
with a babe: I love to babble with those who 
feed me, even though they are skilled masters 
of speech. But enough on the subject of style. 
I now come to the contents of thy letter. 

Thou dost complain of several things, and as 
a matter of fact thou couldst with almost perfect 
justice complain of everything. What in this 
world, pray, can escape just complaint? ‘This 
exception, however, must be borne in mind: 
the moment laments begin to be ineffectual, 
they somehow cease to. be justifiable. Thy 
grievances, indeed, do not lack a just cause, 
but they are without their desired effect, which 
is that, while condemning the past, they should 
provide some remedy for the present and make 
some provision for the future. Considering, 


152 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


however, that the expression of our grievances 
does ‘in truth relieve the burden of our sorrow 
for the time being, clamoring cannot be said to 
be altogether of no avail. At present, O great 
one, thy soul is overburdened with grief. 
Thy long letter is one connected series of com- 
plaints, and yet I would it had been longer. 
Only tediousness and lack of interest can cause 
anything to seem long. 

Permit me, now, to touch briefly upon the 
various details. What thou didst write of thy 
teachers filled me, who am so greedy for knowl- 
edge and learning, with boundless and incred- 
ible joy. Hitherto, I confess, they were abso- 
lutely unknown to me; but hereafter, thanks 
to their renowned disciple, they will be honored 
and worshiped by me. Thy letter touches 
upon matters entirely new to us: on the origin 
of poetry, which thou dost trace to its most an- 
cient sources; on the earliest followers of the 
Muses, among whom, in addition to the well- 
known dwellers upon Helicon, thou dost class 
Cadmus son of Agenor, and a certain Hercules, 
whether Alcides or not appears doubtful. I am 
glad to receive knowledge concerning the city of 
thy birth; for we had cloudy and hazy views 
thereupon, and (I see) even you Greeks were none 


TO HOMER 153 


too clear of the subject.** Furthermore, thou 
dost describe thy pilgrimages undertaken in 
search of knowledge into Phoenicia and Egypt 
whither, several centuries afterward, the illus- 
trious philosophers Pythagoras and Plato jour- 
neyed, and he who gave laws to the Athenians 
and who later in life became a devotee of the 
Pierides, the learned and venerable Solon. Dur- 
ing life he was a great admirer of thine, and after 
death he must have become thy very intimate 
friend. Finally, thou dost inform us of the num- 
ber of thy books, many of which were unknown 
even to the Italians, thy nearest neighbors. 
As to these barbarians by whom we are encircled 
—and I would that we were cut off from them, 
not merely by the lofty Alps, but indeed by the 
whole expanse of the broad ocean—as to these 
barbarians, they have not heard of thy name 
even, much less of the number of thy books. 
Let this serve as a proof unto men of how 
evanescent a dream is fame, for which we toil 
so breathlessly. 

_ Thou didst add a very sad and bitter touch to 
so much that was truly pleasing, when thou didst 
mention the loss of those same books. Oh 
unhappy me, thrice unhappy! How many, many 
things are lost! Nay, all things perish—all that 


154 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


our own blind activity accomplishes ’neath the 
course of the ever-returning sun. Vain are 
the labors and cares of men! ‘Time flies, and, 
short as it is, we waste it. Oh, the vanity and 
pride of men over the nothingness that we are 
and do and hope for! Who will now place 
confidence in a dim ray of light? The supreme 
Sun of eloquence has himself suffered eclipse. 
Who will now dare to mourn the partial loss of 
his own works? Who will now dare cherish 
the hope that any fruit of his labors will endure 
forever ? 

The fruits of Homer’s sleepless toil have 
perished in large measure. Not ours the fault, 
for no one can lose that which he does not 
possess. ‘The Greeks themselves are to blame. 
That they might not yield the palm to us in any 
phase of life whatsoever, they have exceeded 
even our sloth and neglect in the domain of 
letters, and have suffered themselves to lose 
many of Homer’s books, which were to them 
as so many rays of glory. Such blindness 
makes them unworthy of the boast that they 
once produced so luminous a star. 

Again, I was deeply stirred by what thou 
didst relate concerning thy end. Even among 
us the accepted story of thy death was wide- 


ibe 


TO HOMER 155 


spread. I myself gave it currency on occasion, 
adhering to the common version, ’tis true, but 
yet adding to it a note of uncertainty.** For it 
gave me pleasure, and (with thy kind leave) 
it still gives me pleasure, to entertain a better 
opinion of thee and of Sophocles.*®° I am un- 
willing to believe that grief and joy—those 
most disturbing passions of the mind—could 
have held such powerful sway over such divine 
intellects. Similarly, if we are to believe 
common hearsay, Philemon died of laughter. 
But we have at last become acquainted with a 
more serious and more credible version: that 
his death followed a period of unconsciousness 
due, not to excessive laughter (as report would 
have it), but to the wasting and sapping effects 
of a most profound meditation.*’ 

But to return to thee alone and to thy death 
—how violent and how lengthy are thy lamen- 
tations! Calm thyself, I beg of thee. Thou 
wilt succeed, I am sure, if thou wilt banish thy 
passions and return to thy proper self. Much 
dost thou complain of thy imitators, much of 
those who scoffed at and reviled thee. Just 
complaints these, if, indeed, thou wert the only 
one to suffer such treatment; if scoffing and 
reviling were vices unknown to man, instead of 


156 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


their being (as they surely are,) well-worn 
and common traits. Hence it is that thou must 
fain bow to the inevitable—thou who art the 
foremost of this class, I grant thee, but yet not 
a class in thyself. 

What, in truth, am I to say on this subject ? 
When thou didst behold thyself soaring so high 
on the wings of fancy, thou shouldst have fore- 
seen that thou wouldst never lack imitators. 
Surely it must be gratifying to thee that many 
should wish to resemble thee. Very few, how- 
ever, find it possible. Forsooth, why shouldst 
thou not rejoice, conscious as thou art of ever > 
holding the first place? Even I, the least among 
men, not only rejoice, but, as if rejoicing were not 
sufficient, glory and boast that I am now held 
in such esteem that some (if some there be) hope 
to follow in my footsteps and to fashion as I 
have fashioned. Indeed, my joy would be the 
greater were my imitators such as ultimately 
to surpass me. I do not address my vows to 
that Apollo of thine; but I pray and beseech 
my God, the true God of genius, to grant that, 
if there be anyone who has deemed me a worthy 
pattern to follow, he may overtake me with easy 
efforts and indeed outstrip me. I shall consider 
that I have wrought gloriously and effectively 


TO HOMER 157 


if I discover among my friends many who are 
my equals—and I call them friends because 
no one will desire to model himself after me 
unless he love me. Still more fortunate shall 
I deem myself if I recognize superiors among 
those who, having been content to. follow for 
a time, later lead the way as conquerors. For 
if a father desires that the child of his flesh and 
blood be greater than himself, what should the 
author wish for the child of his intellect ? And 
since thou canst entertain no fear of a greater or 
superior, bear with thy imitators patiently 
and calmly. 

In the books of the Saturnalia there is an 
unsettled discussion on the question of superior- 
ity between thee and that one of whom thou dost 
complain so bitterly, Vergil.** There are some 
among us who consider the issue a doubtful one; 
others award the crown to Vergil without hesi- 
tation. I tell thee this, not because I favor or 
oppose the one or the other judgment, but that 
thou mayst know what and how varying opin- 
ions posterity holds of thee. 

And here, O best of leaders, my conscience 
bids me, before proceeding farther, to under- 
take the defense of Vergil himself—a soul (as 
Flaccus says)*® the like of which this earth has 


158 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


ne’er produced more spotless. What thou didst 
say of his imitating thee is not merely true, but 
forms part of common knowledge. Moreover, 
many other true things might have been said by 
thee, but respect (or was it modesty ?) forbade. 
Thou wilt find all the various points discussed in 
order in the Saturnalia. There too thou wilt 
find the sharp retort of Vergil, who, when 
charged by his rivals with having stolen verses 
from thee, answered that it was a sign of great 
power to wrest the club from the hands of 
Hercules.*° I am quite certain that thou wilt 
detect the veiled pungency of this witticism. 

I by no means intend to incriminate him 
whom I set out to defend, as so many do. I 
frankly admit the truth of all thou sayest. Still, 
I cannot listen calmly to thy complaint, when 
thou sayest that though Vergil is overladen and 
bedecked with thy spoils he nowhere deigns to 
make mention of thy name. ‘Thou dost adduce 
the opposite case of Lucan (and with perfect 
right) who in grateful words acknowledges 
his indebtedness to the bard of Smyrna.?* Let 
me add further instances in favor of thy side. 
Flaccus frequently refers to thee, and always 
in noble words; for on one occasion he exalts 
thee above the philosophers themselves, and on 


TO HOMER 159 


another he assigns to thee the most honored 
seat among the poets.*? Naso mentions thee, 
and Juvenal, and Statius. But why should I 
rehearse the long list of those who make mention 
of thee? Practically not a single one of our 
authors has been thus forgetful. 

Why then, thou wilt say, should I bear the 
ingratitude of him alone who deservedly should 
have been the most grateful of all? Before 
answering, let me heap coals of fire on thy 
wounded feelings. Do not by any mischance 
suppose that Vergil was similarly ungrateful 
to all. Know that he mentions—and not once 
merely—Musaeus and Linus and Orpheus; 
and what is more, that he pays the greatest 
deference to the poets Hesiod the Ascraean 
and Theocritus the Syracusan. Finally, he 
does not omit mention even of Varus and Gallus 
and of other contemporaries—a thing which 
jealousy would never have permitted, had he 
harbored such base feeling. 

What now? Do I not seem to have aggra- 
vated the causes of that plaint which I had 
proposed to lessen or entirely to remove? 
Yes, if I were to stop at this point. But thou 
must hear me out. We must examine all the 
circumstances and bring to bear all our reason- 


160 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


ing faculties, especially since we are to sit as 
judges. 

Vergil naturally makes mention of Theocritus 
in the Bucolics, because he had taken him as 
his model; and likewise, in the appropriate 
place in the Georgics, he speaks of Hesiod.’ 
And then thou wilt ask, ‘‘Why does he make no 
mention of me anywhere in his heroic poem, 
seeing that he had chosen me as his third 
model ?”’ Believe me, Homer; had not wicked 
death prevented, Vergil would have given thee 
due honor, for he was the most gentle and 
modest of men, and (as we read) a man of 
irreproachable life. Others he honored when 
the opportunity presented itself and in those 
places where it suited his convenience. For 
thee, to whom he was most heavily in debt, he 
was reserving a place, not selected by circum- 
stances, but destined and marked out after due 
deliberation. Which place, dost thou suppose ? 
Which but the most distinguished and conspicu- 
ous? The end of his illustrious poem it was 
that he had reserved for thee. There he had 
destined to hail thee as his leader and in sonorous 
lines to exalt thy name to the stars. What 
place more worthy, I ask, in which to praise 
the leader of our journey? ‘Thou hast good 


TO HOMER 161 


cause, therefore, for mourning the over-early 
death which cut off Vergil, and the Italian world 
shares thy grief; but thou canst have no 
grievances against thy friend. 

I shall cite a very close and similar example 
to prove the truth of my previous remarks. 
Even as Vergil took thee as his model, so he 
in his turn was chosen by Papinius Statius, 
whom I have mentioned above, a man renowned 
not merely for his intellectual powers but also 
for the singular charm of his manners. And 
still he did not acknowledge the great leader 
of his genius until the end of his poetical journey. 
For, though he had already and in a less con- 
spicuous place declared himself inferior to 
Vergil in style, it was only at the close that he 
openly and in good faith paid the full debt of 
his grateful soul to the author of the Aeneid.?4 
If, then, death had untimely laid its hands upon 
Statius, Vergil also would have been unsung 
by his grateful follower, even as thou by him. 

I should wish thee to be persuaded that it is 
as I say. For it is surely so, unless I am de- 
ceived by false signs; and even if it were other- 
wise, the more favorable of two opinions is the 
one to be preferred when in doubt. All the 
arguments I have advanced thus far are, of 


162 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


course, in extenuation of the chief works of 
Vergil. For if thou turnest thy attention to 
the short poems which are called his earlier 
works—clearly his first youthful efforts—thou 
wilt there find mention of thy name.’ 

It now remains for me to touch lightly upon 
the minor complaints scattered here and there 
throughout the body of thy letter. Thou 
grievest that thou hast been mangled and dis- 
membered by thy imitators. It had needs 
be so, Homer. No man’s intellect was suff- 
ciently vigorous to grasp thee whole. ‘Thou dost 
wax indignant, moreover, that they should 
shower abuse upon thee though clothed in thy 
spoils.?° Alas! it is only what thou must ex- 
pect; no one can be particularly ungrateful 
except him who has previously been the re- 
cipient of a great boon. ‘Thy next charge is 
that, whereas thy name was held in great 
honor by the early jurists and physicians, to 
their successors it has become a subject of 
mockery and contempt. Thou dost not ob- 
serve how different the later generations are 
from the preceding. If they were of a like 
stamp, they would love and cherish the same 
things. Let thy indignation cease, and thy 
sorrow as well. On the contrary, take com- 


TO HOMER 163 


fort in hoping for the best. To be in disfa- 
vor with the wicked and the ignorant is the 
first sign of virtue and intelligence. The ra- 
diance of thy genius is so brilliant that our 
weak sight cannot endure it. It is with thee 
as with the sun, for which it is not reckoned a 
disgrace but praise most high, that it conquers 
the vision of the weak and puts to flight the 
birds of night. Among the ancients, and 
indeed also among men of today—if any there 
are in whom there still lives even a small spark 
of our early nature—thou must be esteemed not 
merely a holy philosopher (as thou thyself say- 
est??) but greater and superior to any philoso- 
pher, as I have said above.?® ‘Thou dost cover 
a most beautiful philosophy with a very charm- 
ing and transparent veil. 

Assuredly thou canst have no concern for the 
disesteem in which thou art held by the mon- 
strous men of today. Indeed, it is most 
earnestly to be desired that thou shalt continue 
to displease them, for this is the first step to 
glory. The second step is not to have one’s mer- 
its acknowledged. Dismiss therefore, I beg of 
thee, all care and sorrow, and return to that 
deserved seat of honor in the Elysian Fields 
which thou didst formerly hold and whence thou 


164 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


sayest thou wert driven by such trifling ab- 
surdities. It is not fitting that the composure of 
the sage should be dispelled by the affronts of 
fools. Otherwise what would be the result ? 
What would ever put an end to the evil, since 
the Hebrew philosopher most verily hath said, 
“The number of fools is infinite” ??2 No truer 
word could have been spoken. Do not all the 
streets and homes and public squares attest it ? 

Thy next grievance is, to my mind, a cause for 
great joy and for sincere happiness, though thou 
seemest to be so enraged byit. Even sweets taste 
bitter to him who has a disordered stomach. 
Thou dost weep when it had been more appro- 
priate to rejoice. ‘Thou dost weep because our 
common friend (whom thou takest to be a 
Thessalian and whom I have always thought a 
Byzantine*°) has compelled thee to enter within 
the walls of my flourishing native city, to live 
among strangers or (if thou dost insist) to live the 
life of an exile. Rest assured that he has done 
-and is doing so in the greatest good faith and out 
of sincerest love for thee. By his labor he has 
commenced to endear himself to all who cherish 
thy name, and who, though few in number, 
still do exist. See to it, therefore, that thou 
dost not nourish any resentment against that 


TO HOMER 165 


very person to whom we—lovers all of thee— 
-are giving thanks both in our name and in thine. 
If fortune befriend his undertaking, he will 
restore thee to us and to the Ausonian Muses, 
who have so long been seeking to know thee. 

Cease wondering that the valley of Fiesole 
and the banks of the Arno can boast of but 
three who are thy friends. It is enough; it 
is much; yes, it is more than I had hoped for, 
to have found three Pierian spirits in a city 
so given over to Mammon. But do not despair. 
The city is a large and populous one; seek and 
thou wilt find a fourth. To these I should add 
a fifth—for he surely deserves it—him I mean 
whose brow was garlanded with the Penean or 
Alphean laurels. But I know not how it is 
that we have been deprived of him by the 
Babylon across the Alps. Does it seem to thee 
nothing wonderful to encounter five such men 
at one time and in one city? Seek elsewhere, 
and what hast thou? That famous Bologna for 
which thou dost sigh, most generous seat of 
learning as it is, can produce but one, though 
thou shouldst search it from end to end. Verona 
boasts of two,and Sulmonaofone. Also Mantua 
might vaunt of one, if his theological studies 
did not draw him away from earthly matters; 


166 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


for he has deserted thy ensigns and has ranged 
himself beneath those of Ptolemy. Wonderful 
to relate, Rome herself, the head and center 
of all things, has been drained of such citizens 
almost to a man. Perugia did have one who 
gave great promise of the future, but he neglected 
opportunities for developing his better self. 
He has abandoned not only Parnassus, but the 
Apennines and the Alps as well, and is now, in 
his old age, roaming about Spain, scratching 
away at parchments to earn his livelihood as a 
scribe. Other cities gave birth to other friends 
of thine, but all whom I became acquainted 
with have departed from this mortal habitation 
for that universal and eternal city.3' This, 
then, is what I am leading up to: that thou 
shouldst not continue to complain of one who is 
indeed thy friend, since he has brought thee 
to a country boasting of only a few friends and 
admirers, it 1s true, but still of more such than 
thou wouldst find today in any other land. 

Art thou, perchance, unaware how few 
scholars there have been at all times, even in our 
country? Unless I am mistaken, this same 
friend of ours is at this time the only scholar in 
all Greece. My late teacher was a second.3? 
But alas! he died after having raised within me 


TO HOMER 167 


most pleasing hopes of ultimate success, leaving 
me atthe mere threshold of such studies. 
Indeed, even before his death he had left me to 
shift for myself; for, having regard for his rather 
than for my own advantage, I had added my 
influence to procure his elevation to a bishopric. 
Therefore, Homer, bear up with this small 
handful of followers and grant to an enfeebled 
and declining age the same indulgence which 
thou wouldst have granted to a strong and 
flourishing one. 

Formerly there were a few who highly valued 
the ennobling study of letters. ‘Today their 
number is sadly diminished, and I predict that 
shortly they will have disappeared entirely.3 
It is best to abide with these few as eagerly 
as may be, and pray do not for one instant har- 
bor the thought of exchanging our stream for 
any larger channel. Thou art no mere mariner, 
nor fisherman; nay, if the report be true (and 
I would it were false) thy intercourse with that 
tribe was none too auspicious.*4 The small 
Castalian fount and the low and humble Helicon 
once did give thee pleasure. May our Arno 
and our hills be as fortunate, where noble 
intellects abound like the gushing waters of 
the hills and where the sweetly singing nightin- 


168 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


gales build their nests. These are few indeed, 
I confess; but to repeat, if thou surveyest the 
land far and near, they will appear relatively 
many. Outside of these few singers what dost 
thou hope to find in our population except ful- 
lers, weavers, and smiths? Not to mention im- 
postors, whom wilt thou come upon except 
publicans, thieves of various kinds, thousands 
of frauds and cheats, hostile factions that never 
hesitate to resort to deceitful means, the anxious 
avaricious and their vain struggles, and the 
rank scum that pursues the mechanical trades ? 
Among such as these thou must needs endure 
all scoffing with unruffled brow, as an eagle 
among the night-owls, as a lion among apes. 
In their presence thou must repeat what Ennius, 
greatly thy inferior, once said: “I flit about in 
life on the lips of (learned) men.”’*5 Let the lips 
of the untaught continue to disclose their igno- 
rance and utter vain gossip. Let them remain in 
ignorance of thee and thy works, or, knowing, 
let them revile. Praise from such lips would 
be blasphemy indeed. 

I come now to myself, so that, being the least 
in intellect and in years, I may also form the 
last topic of my letter. In thy adversity thou 
dost beg me to come to thy aid. Oh, cruel and 


TO HOMER 169 


inexorable fate! In succoring so great a man 
as thou I could forever boast of a better claim 
to glory than any I have yet attained or hope 
to attain. I call Christ to witness—a God to 
thee unknown—that there is absolutely nothing 
which I can offer for thy relief except affection- 
ate, tender pity and loyal advice. What assist- 
ance, indeed, can be received from one who 
can do nothing for himself? Hast thou not 
heard that even thy followers were reviled 
out of hatred for thy name, and that they were 
judged insane by an assembly of insane? If 
this could happen in thineown age and in Athens, 
most cultured of cities, what dost thou suppose 
will be the case today. with other poets in cities 
entirely devoted to the pursuit of pleasure ? 
I am one of those at whom the vulgar and the 
ignorant aim their shafts. I am astonished and 
wonder why it is so. If only I had given cause 
for some justifiable hatred! But it matters not 
how just the cause may or may not have been; 
the reality of their hatred is undeniable. And 
is it on my bosom, then, that thou wouldst seek 
refuge ? Oh, insensate turn of fortune’s wheel! 
No palace could be sufficiently spacious and 
resplendent for thee, Homer, if great intellects 
were to strive for such material honors as for- 


170 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


tune can bestow. But not so: genius spurns 
the turrets and castles of the ignorant, and 
delights in the lonely and lowly hut. For my 
part, although I do not consider myself worthy 
of so great a guest, I have already harbored thee 
at my home both in Greek and (as far as it was 
possible) in Latin.*° I trust to have thee entire 
. before long, provided thy Thessalian will com- 
plete what he has begun.*7 Know, however, 
that thou art to be received in an even more 
sacred inclosure: I have made preparations to 
welcome thee with the greatest eagerness and 
devotion to the innermost recesses of my heart. 
In a word, my love for thee is greater and warmer 
than the rays of the sun, and my esteem such 
that no one could cherish a greater. 

This is all I have been able to offer thee, 
leader and father. Any attempt to free thee 
from the scorn of the rabble would result in 
detracting from thy singular and peculiar praise. 
Moreover, it is a task beyond my powers and 
those of any other, except perhaps of that man 
who will have sufficient strength to curb the pas- 
sions of the mob. And although God has such 
power, He has not exerted it in the past, nor do 
I think He is likely to do so hereafter. 

I have spoken at great length as if thou wert 


TO HOMER dior N 


present. Emerging now from those very vivid 
flights of the imagination, I realize how very 
far removed thou art, and I fear lest it may be 
annoying to thee to read so lengthy a letter in 
the dim light of the lower world. I reassure 
myself when I remember that also thy letter 
was long. 

Farewell forever. And when thou wilt have . 
returned to thy seat of honor, pray give kindly 
greetings to Orpheus, Linus, Euripides, and 
the rest. 


Written in the world above, in that city lying between 
the famous rivers Po, Ticino, Adda, and others, whence 
some say Milan derives its name, on the ninth of October 
in the thirteen hundred and sixtieth year of this last era. 


NOTES ON Fam., XXIV, 12, TO HOMER 


1. The man who taught Petrarch the ele- 
ments of Greek was Bernardo Barlaamo, 
theologian, mathematician, astronomer, and 
philosopher. This learned Italian monk was 
born at Seminara, Calabria Ulteriore, and 
entered the Roman Catholic monastery of St. 
Basil. From Calabria he journeyed to Aetolia, 
afterward studied at Thessalonica (at that 
time a center of learning), and finally (1327 or 
1328) went to Constantinople, the better to 
learn Greek and thus be able to read Aristotle 
in the original. He at once became a member 
of the Greek church, and in 1331 was appointed 
Abbot of the Convent of St. Salvator at Con- 
stantinople. He was protected by Andronicus 
III (Palaeologus, 1328-41), who in 1339 sent 
him to Avignon on a diplomatic mission to Pope 
Benedict XII, endeavoring to bring about the 
union of the two churches in common cause 
against the Turks. In this mission Barlaamo 
was unsuccessful. Returning to Greece, he 
attacked the Hesychasts (or Quietists) of Mt. 
Athos, and became involved with Gregory 


172 


TO HOMER 173 


Palamas (afterward archbishop of ‘Thessalonica) 
on the question of the light which had been 
manifested to the disciples on Mt. Tabor at the 
Transfiguration. At a synod held at Constan- 
tinople in 1341, the Hesychasts defended them- 
selves so ably that Barlaamo was condemned. 
Since his protector was now dead, he was com- 
pelled to flee into Italy. 

He at once re-entered the Roman church and 
was made librarian by King Robert. In 1342 
he revisited Avignon on a second mission, and . 
it is on this occasion that he must have made 
the acquaintance of Petrarch (P. de Nolhac, IT, 
p- 136), who during the summer of 1342 re- 
ceived from him daily instruction in Greek— 
whether at Avignon or at Vaucluse is not clear. 
At the end of the summer Petrarch had made 
but small progress. Still he added his recom- 
mendation to those of others when Pope 
Clement VI nominated Barlaamo bishop of 
Gerace, a town in Calabria sixty miles north- 
east of Reggio. He was consecrated bishop at 
Avignon on October 2, 1342, and thereafter 
left for Gerace, dying in that town six years 
later, in 1348. 

In conclusion, then, the first seeds of Greek 
in the West were sown by a learned, ambitious 


174 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


Calabrian monk, who (to use a modern expres- 
sion) went abroad to complete his education, 
committed apostasy to further his ambition, 
repeating the act fourteen years later when 
defeated in a religious controversy; a man who, 
though born in Italy, was more Greek than 
Roman (to the extent of almost forgetting his 
Latin), who never had entertained the remotest 
idea of being a teacher of Greek, and who cared 
very little for the humble pupil offered him by 
chance at Avignon—the enthusiastic poet and 
scholar who had received the Laurel Crown at 
Rome the year before, and who was destined 
to become known to future generations as the 
‘first modern scholar.” 

2. A reference to the translation of the 
Odyssey made by Livius Andronicus, and to 
the Epitome of the Iliad, which is now attributed 
to Silius Italicus, but which in the Middle Ages 
was known as the Homerus Latinus and later 
as the Pindarus Thebanus (see n. 5). 

3. The allusion is to Leonzio Pilato, who 
claimed to be a pupil of Barlaamo. The 
place of his birth is uncertain, owing to the pecu- 
liar character of the man. He was never con- 
tent with his actual position and surroundings. 
In consequence, when in Italy he disdained and 


TO HOMER 175 


reviled the Italians and things Italian, and 
declared himself a native of Thessalonica— 
as if (comments Petrarch) it were more honor- 
able to be of Greek than of Italian origin. 
Similarly, when in Greece he could not find 
anyone or anything praiseworthy in the Eastern 
Empire and in Byzantium, but boasted of his 
Calabrian origin. The probability is that he 
was born in Calabria. The date is un- 
known. 

Authorities differ as the to year when Leonzio 
became acquainted with Petrarch (see n. 6). 
Accordingly, the long-bearded adventurer is 
said to have met Petrarch at Padua during the 
winter of 1358-59. The poet immediately 
grasped the opportunity of having him trans- 
late some passages from the manuscript of 
Homer which had been sent to him by Sigero 
in 1354 (P. de Nolhac, II, p. 156). In March, 
1359, Petrarch received a visit at Milan from 
Boccaccio, and may have introduced Leonzio to 
him (Koerting, Boccaccio, p. 261). Doubtless 
Petrarch told him of his recent acquaintance 
(P. de Nolhac, zbid., p. 157), and showed him 
the specimen translations from the Ilzad which 
had been made in the winter just passed (zbid., 
p. 173, and n. 4 below). Leonzio, it appears, 


176 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


had in the meantime roved to Venice, where 
the anxious Boccaccio overtook him (Koerting, 
op. cit., p. 260). Shortly afterward Leonzio 
declared his intention of leaving for Avignon 
in search of fortune. But so desirous was 
Boccaccio of learning Greek, and so eager, 
therefore, to have him near at hand, that he 
prevailed upon the Calabrian to visit Florence, 
which city they reached together in the early 
part of 1360; for in August of that year Leonzio 
had already been some time at Florence (Koer- 
ting, zbid.). There Boccaccio gave him lodg- 
ing at his own home, and exerted all his influence 
to have him appointed professor at the Studio 
Fiorentino. His efforts were crowned with 
success, for the Republic decided to pay Leonzio 
an annual stipend in return for his services, 
which were to consist in giving public lectures 
on the works of Homer. Thus was established 
the first chair of Greek in the West, and Leonzio 
Pilato, adventurer though he was, has the honor 
of being the first professor of the Greek lan- 
guage and literature in a western university. 
He held the newly established chair of Greek 
from 1360 to 1363. During three vears, from 
the summer of 1359 to November, 1361 (Koer- 
ting, op. cit., p. 262), the author’of the Decam- 


TO HOMER 177 


eron and the other two Florentine friends of 
Homer alluded to by Petrarch took private 
lessons of Leonzio with great eagerness, and 
we can readily picture them in Boccaccio’s 
library, sitting at the feet of the Calabrian and 
drinking ‘“‘the muddy stream of pseudo-learning 
and lies that flowed from this man’s lips, with 
insatiable avidity” (J. A. Symonds, The Revival 
oj Learning, p. 67, ed. 1898). 

It goes without saying that Petrarch was 
kept duly informed by Boccaccio of affairs at 
Florence. The question of translating Homer 
was of course uppermost in the minds of both 
these early humanists, and it was broached the 
moment Pilato became established at the uni- 
versity. Strange to relate, a good manuscript 
of Homer was not to be had at Florence, and 
even Leonzio does not seem to have had one 
in his possession. Boccaccio, however, had 
been told that there was such a manuscript for 
sale at Padua, and so wrote to Petrarch request- 
ing him to procure it. Petrarch promised to 
do so, adding that if the Paduan volume slipped 
through their hands, he would be happy to place 
at Leonzio’s disposal the copy sent to him in 
1354 by Sigero. And here it is best to listen 
to the words of Petrarch himself on the subject. 


178 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


In a letter dated at Milan, August 18, 1360 
(Var., 25), he says: 


I now come to the last point—namely, that if (as you 
seem to think) I have bought the copy of Homer which 
was for sale at Padua, I should please to lend it to you. 
You reason that I possess another copy of old, and that 
you would entrust the new copy to our Leonzio to have 
him translate it from the Greek into Latin for the benefit 
of yourself and our other studious fellow-countrymen. 
I examined that copy, but did not give it a second thought 
because it was clearly inferior to mine. It may still be 
easily obtained through him who made me acquainted 
with that same Leonzio. Leonzio’s letters will surely 
have great weight with him, and I shall write to him also. 
If the Paduan volume slips through our hands (which, 
however, I do not think likely) then mine will be at your 
service. I have always been very eager for translations 
of all the Greek authors, but of that one author in par- 
ticular. Had Fate smiled more kindly upon me when I 
entered upon the student’s career, and had not death so 
untimely overtaken my illustrious teacher, I should 
today, perhaps, have something more than a rudimentary 
knowledge of Greek. You may count upon me in your 
undertaking. Indeed, I grieve and am indignant at the 
loss of that ancient translation (the work of Cicero, as 
far as we can judge), the beginning of which Horace 
inserted in his poem on the Ars Poetica (vss. 141, 142). 
I can scarcely endure this neglect of the more truly 
precious things when I observe the eager pursuit of our 
age for those things that are low and base. But what am 
I to do? I must needs endure it. If proper care and 


TO HOMER 179 


diligence on the part of foreigners can in any way make 
amends for our own disregard, may the Muses and Apollo 
prosper their undertakings. Believe me, I could receive 
no more valuable nor acceptable merchandise either from 
the Chinese, or the Arabs, or from the shores of the Red 
Sea. Do not be shocked—I know what I am saying. 
I am fully aware that the nominative case I employed 
for the expression ‘‘acceptable merchandise” (‘‘merx 
gratior’’) is not in common use with our grammarians. 
In the ancient writers, however, it is common. I do 
not mean merely those earlier authors, in whose footsteps 
the ignorant ones of today hesitate to follow. I have 
in mind those authors who are very near to us in time, 
but who in learning and intellect are vastly our 
superiors, men from whose merits the vain chattering 
and the blind pride of our age have not yet dared to 
detract. It is in these authors, I say, that the nominative 
case is found; and since the name occurs to me, I shall 
add that it is to be found in Horace. Let us, therefore, 
bring it again into good repute, if we can, and let us dare 
to recall from unworthy exile a word which has been 
banished from the domains of that tongue to the study 
of which we devote all our energies. 

I should like to clear my conscience on one point, lest 
at some future day I may repent of having kept silent. 
You tell me that the translation will be a prose one and 
that it will also be very literal. If this be so, pray give 
due attention to the following passage from St. Jerome. 
I shall quote his exact words, because he had an intimate 
knowledge of both Latin and Greek, and was especially 
skilled in the art of translation. In the preamble to 
his Latin version of the De temporibus (a work by Euse- 


180 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


bius of Caesarea), St. Jerome says; “If there is anyone 
who does not believe that the grace of the original is 
lost in translation, let him endeavor to translate Homer 
into Latin literally. I shall say more: let him translate 
Homer into the prose of his own vernacular, and he will 
recognize that the order of the words has rendered his 
translation ridiculous and that he has made the most 
eloquent and vigorous of poets of none effect.” I have 
ventured to give you this warning now, that no labor nor 
time may be wasted. And yet, I greatly desire the thing 
done, no matter how. So ardently do I long to become 
acquainted with noble works that, as in the case of a 
famishing man, I do not insist on the art of a chef. I 
await therefrom with great expectations food for the soul. 
Some time ago Leonzio himself made for me a short 
translation, into Latin prose, of the beginning of Homer, 
which gave me a taste of the character of the whole work. 
The lines gave me pleasure even though they were proof 
of St. Jerome’s assertion. After all, you see, they 
retained their hidden power to please; like unto certain 
rich foods which should be served in gelatine, but in 
which the efforts of the cook have not been crowned 
with success. ‘The form may have been destroyed, but 
the taste and the odor do not perish. 

Let Leonzio therefore persevere in his undertaking, 
and with the help of God may he restore to us Homer, 
who, as far as we are concerned, is a lost author. As 
regards the other Greek authors, may Heaven assist him 
in his labors. Both of you ask that I send you the volume 
of Plato which I managed to rescue from the fire of my 
transalpine retreat. Your zeal is most commendable 
and you will receive the volume in good time. You 


TO HOMER 181 


may rely upon it, no obstacle to your noble undertakings 
will ever be interposed by me. Be very careful, however, 
of one thing: do not commit the serious error of gather- 
ing within the covers of one and the same volume these 
two great princes of Greek thought. The weight of 
two such intellects would be too great for human shoul- 
ders to bear. Let Leonzio commence his task with the 
help of God; and of the two authors he has chosen to 
translate, let him begin with him who wrote so many 
centuries earlier. Farewell. 


The Paduan volume must after all have got- 
ten into Boccaccio’s hands, for we know that 
Petrarch retained his own copy while Leonzio 
was engaged on the translation. Furthermore, 
from the date of the present letter addressed 
to Homer, October 9, 1360, we gather that 
Leonzio must have begun his task at least as 
early as October, 1360. From this date to 1363 
he was occupied in translating both the Jlad 
and the Odyssey, a translation which Fracassetti 
(Vol. 4, pp. 96, 97) and P. de Nolhac (II, pp. 
161-63) argue was made at Petrarch’s expense. 
As to its merits it may be said that, like the one 
of Livius Andronicus, it was roughly made and 
was almost verbatim. The charlatan professor, 
it appears, knew but little of either Greek or 
Latin; and only on the score of relative knowl- 
edge and ignorance can we explain the implicit 


182 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


confidence placed in him by Boccaccio and by 
Petrarch. (For the opening lines of the Ilzad 
and the Odyssey as translated by Leonzio, with 
references, consult Voigt, II, p. 111, n. 4, and 
J. A. Symonds, Revival, p. 68, ed. 1898.) 

4. We have already seen that when Leonzio 
Pilato met Petrarch at Padua in the winter of 
1358-59, the latter had him translate several 
portions of Homer (see n. 3, par. 2). It is to 
this translation that Petrarch here alludes 
(P. de Nolhac, IT, p. 157, n. 2), for there is no 
evidence that Pilato sent him any specimens 
of the translations done at Florence (cf. Voigt, 
II, p. 111). Consequently, this too must be 
the allusion in the sentence occurring shortly 
below, ‘“‘The Greek flavor has recently been 
enjoyed by me from a Latin flagon,” and in the 
passage from Var. 25 (quoted in n. 3), ‘“‘Some 
time ago Leonzio himself made for me a short 
translation, into Latin prose, of the beginning 
of Homer, which gave me a taste of the charac- 
ter of the whole work.” 

Further proof is offered by the marginal notes 
which Petrarch made to the text of Pilato’s 
translation which Boccaccio sent him. Fre- 
quently he states that elsewhere a different 
rendering is made of the original, and even 


TO HOMER 183 


gives the variant. From a study of these 
P. de Nolhac concludes (II, pp. 171-74) that 
the variants derive from the translation made 
by Pilato at Padua in the winter of 1358-59; 
‘and that this earlier translation included, per- 
haps, only the first five books of the lad. 
This last fact serves to explain completely the 
expression used by Petrarch in the present 
letter, ‘‘praeter enim aliquot tuorum principia 
librorum”’ (Vol. III, p. 293). 

5. Before Leonzio completed his translation 
(which was neither poetical nor Latin: Voigt, 
II, p. 191), Petrarch and other mediaeval 
students were obliged to content themselves 
with the Perzochae of the Iliad and the Odyssey 
which are attributed to Ausonius, and with a 
poor Epitome of the Iliad which was known 
as the Homerus Latinus or Pindarus Thebanus 
(P. de Nolhac, II, p..131). It is because of the 
existence of this that some maintain that Leon- 
zio’s was not the first Latin translation of mod- 
ern times. A mere glance, however, will 
convince anyone that this Homerus (published 
in 1881 by Baehrens under the title ‘‘Italici 
Ilias Latina,” in Poetae latint minores, Vol. III, 
pp. 7-59 inclusive), is not a real translation and 
does not correspond to the real Homer. 


184 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


The poem consists of 1,070 hexameters, 
which were written while Nero was still ruling. 
It was quoted as early as Lactantius (died 
325 A.D.), and was at first referred to by the 
simple designation Homerus or Homerus Latt- 
nus. ‘The worthy monks of the Middle Ages, 
having read that Homer was a Greek, later felt 
it incumbent upon them to assign an author to 
this Latin version, and by some mysterious 
process they hit upon the “‘philosopher’’ Pin- 
darus of Thebes. From the thirteenth century 
on, the name Péndarus prevailed. 

In 1880 Fr. Buecheler observed that Il. 1-8 
and 1063-70 of the J/zas Latina formed acrostics, 
reading respectively “‘Italicus”’ and “‘Scripsit”’ 
(Rh.M., XXXV, p. 391). Hence he deduced 
that the Epitome was composed by Silius Itali- 
cus, the author of the Punica, who died in 
tor A.D. This conclusion is practically ac- 
cepted by Teuffel, who says (par. 320, nn. 
7 and 8) that the Ilias is probably an early 
work of Silius Italicus. Baehrens (oP. cit.) is 
more guarded, saying that it was written by 
a “certain Italicus” (“‘confecit . .. . Italicus 
quidam’’), adding farther down on the same 
page (p. 3) that Buecheler’s conclusion is not 
quite right (“‘minus recte”’), simply because it 


TO HOMER 185 


has been proved that the J/zas was written under 
Nero, if not earlier. But since Nero died in 
68 A.D., and Italicus in ror A.D. (at the age 
of 75), it does not seem improbable that the 
Ilias does after all represent an early work, 
perhaps even exercise, of Silius Italicus. 

It is a sign of keen and clear judgment on the 
part of Petrarch, to call into question both here 
and elsewhere (cf. Fam., X, 4), in spite of his 
ignorance of the original, the real merits and 
the authenticity of the Homerus Latinus, in 
an age when it was universally accepted as a 
good and faithful translation from the Greek. 

6. It seems 4 propos briefly to relate here 
Leonzio’s career subsequent to the professorship 
at Florence and to the translation of Homer. 
Upon invitation of Niccolé Acciaiuoli, a Floren- 
tine who then held the post of grand seneschal 
at the court of Naples, Boccaccio had paid a 
visit to that city in 1361 (Koerting, Bocc., p. 262), 
taking Leonzio as his traveling companion. 
Leaving in the beginning of the summer of 
1363, the two paid Petrarch a visit at Venice; 
and it is from this visit that some would date the 
beginning of Leonzio’s personal acquaintance 
with Petrarch (Frac., 4, p. 97). Boccaccio 
spent the months of June, July, and August, 


186 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


1363, at Venice with his dearly beloved friend, 
but was then obliged to return to the city on 
the Arno. He wished Leonzio to accompany 
him as before; but such was the inconstancy 
of that gloomy Calabrian that he absolutely 
refused to do so, declaring his intention of return- 
ing to Constantinople. 

In a letter to Boccaccio dated at Venice, 
March 1, 1365 (Sen., III, 6), Petrarch acquaints 
him with Leonzio’s departure from Venice in 
the spring of 1364 (Koerting, Petrarca, p. 475), 
saying that he had presented the departing 
guest with a copy of Terence (in whose com- 
edies Leonzio seemed to take such great delight) 
and had begged him to purchase for him in the 
East the works of Sophocles, Euripides, and of 
other classic Greek authors (Sen., VI, 1). 
Petrarch adds that, prior to leaving, Leonzio 
had heaped vile abuse upon Italy and the 
Italians, but that he had no sooner touched the 
eastern shores of the Adriatic than, with charac- 
teristic fickleness, he had sent a long letter cast- 
ing imprecations upon Greece and Constanti- 
nople. In Seniles V, 3 (of December 10, 1366, 
Koerting, Bocc., p. 263, n. 2) Petrarch declares 
his firm resolve of never recalling Leonzio and 
of disregarding entirely all his prayers and 


TO HOMER 187 


entreaties. This letter shows bitter feeling 
against Leonzio, wherein Petrarch is goaded 
by the thought of the former’s unfeeling and 
uncalled-for departure. The last letter per- 
taining to Leonzio’s life (Sen., VI, 1, of January 
25 or 27, 1367, P. de Nolhac II, pp. 164, 165, and 
Koerting, Bocc., p. 263, n. 2) is one full of com- 
passion, for it gives an account of his death 
toward the end of 1366—how, during a storm 
at sea, Leonzio, like Ulysses, had strapped 
himself to the mast, and had been struck dead 
by a thunderbolt. 

7. See above, n. 4. 

Ss Sen) Conir: 11,” praefi,-8.  Ciceronem 
eloquentia sua in carminibus destituit; Vergil- 
ium illa felicitas ingenii [sui] oratione soluta 
reliquit.”” Comparing with Frac., Vol. III, 
pp. 293, 294, it will be seen that Petrarch has 
adapted the above words to his construction. 

g. For the poetical efforts of Cicero consult 
C. F. W. Mueller (Teubner, 1898), Vol. III, 
Pt. IV, pp. 350-405, “‘Fragmenta Poematum.”’ 
As to Vergil, we gather that he must have writ- 
ten letters to Augustus from the words of Dona- 
tus (Vita Verg., XII, 46, p. 61R). Macrobius 
(I, 24, 11) gives a five-line quotation from a 
letter of the poet to the emperor. In fact, 


188 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


comparing the contents of this quotation with 
the statement in Donatus, it seems that the five 
lines are from the very letter referred to by the 
biographer. 

to. St. Jerome, Chron., I, praej. 2, end, in 
Migne, Vol. XXVII, coll. 223, 224. Petrarch 
quotes the same passage, and 4 propos of the 
same subject, in Var. 25. Consult n. 3 above, 
in which a lengthy extract from that letter is 
given. The present letter to Homer (/’am., 
XXIV, 12) is dated October 9, 1360; Var. 25 
to Boccaccio is dated August 18, 1360. If, 
then, the aliquando of the present letter alludes 
to Var. 25, it will be evident that the interval 
elapsed was but a short one. 

11. The translation by Leonzio Pilato was 
made into Latin prose. The reference here, 
however, must be to the preliminary translation 
made at Padua in the winter of 1358-5sq (cf. 
nn. 3 and 4). In Var. 25 Petrarch employs the 
same figure. 

12. Fam., XXIV, to (to Horace) and XXIV, 
tr (to Vergil) are in the form of poetic epistles. 
In 1359 (cf. Fam., XX, 7, note) Petrarch sepa- 
rated all those letters which he did not destroy 
into two groups: the prose epistles, which he 
dedicated to Socrates (fam., praejatio, 1, pp. 


TO HOMER 189 


15, 16, and Fam., XXIV, 13), and the poetic 
epistles, which he dedicated to Barbato da 
Sulmona (praej., loc. cit., and Fam., XXII, 3). 
The appearance in this collection, therefore, 
of the poetic epistles to Horace and to Vergil, 
must be due to their subject-matter, for they 
very naturally fall among those letters written 
“veteribus illustribus viris”’ (Vol. III, p. 306). 

13. Apparently, Petrarch had received a 
letter purporting to be from the shade of Homer. 
The author of it is unknown. If it came from 
Florence, then of course it must have emanated 
from the circle of his Florentine friends. How- 
ever, in Vol. 5, pp. 197, 198, Fracassetti, com- 
menting upon the words, “Tua illa Bononia 
quam suspiras .... unum habet” (Vol. III, 
p. 301), but reading ‘‘qua suspiras,”’ translates, 
“That Bologna of yours whence you send such 
laments,’’ and hazards the suggestion that the 
letter to which this of Petrarch is a reply came 
from Bologna and not from Florence. We may 
go a step farther. Since Homeric scholars in 
Italy were so scarce at the time, and since 
Petrarch states that Bologna could boast of 
but one—Pietro di Muglio or de Muglo (cf. 
n. 31)—it would seem (if Fracassetti be right) 
_ that Pietro di Bologna was responsible for the 


Igo PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


pseudo-Homer letter. As Messrs. Robinson 
and Rolfe perhaps justly remark of that letter 
(Petrarch, p. 253, n. 2): ‘It must have been 
even more interesting than this reply, in its 
unconscious revelation of mediaeval limi- 
tations.” 

14. In this instance Petrarch is carried away 
by his subject, and addresses his (to us 
unknown) correspondent as if he were the real 
Homer and a Greek. Compare what has been 
said on this subject in the preceding note. 

15. The reference is to Rem. utr. fort., 1, 64, 
entitled De aviarits avibusque loquacibus—a 
most ridiculous place in which to find mention 
of the bard of Smyrna. On p. 193 one of the 
interlocutors says, ‘‘I own a most eloquent 
magpie.’’ ‘To which the other replies that it is 
absurd to apply such a term to a magpie, adding, 
“But if the magpie forthwith forget a word, 
either because the word is a difficult one or 
because of its own weak memory, it may even 
die of grief. Hence we must now consider less 
marvelous the death of the poet Homer, if 
indeed the current report be true’’—‘“‘si tamen 
illa (mors) etiam vera est.” The De remediis 
was begun in 1358 (Frac., I, p. 1, n. 1) and. 
finished in 1366 (Torraca, I, Pt. II, p. 231). 


TO HOMER IgI 


Since the date of the Homer letter is October 9, 
1360, it results that at least the first sixty-four 
chapters of Book I of the De remedtis were 
written before this date. We see, too, that by 
this slight reference to Homer, Petrarch did 
give some currency to the report that Homer 
died of grief, and did add to it a note of uncer- 
tainty. > 

The story of Homer’s death, as Petrarch and 
other mediaeval men knew it, must have been 
the one they found in Valerius Maximus; and 
though Petrarch does not actually cite him as 
his source, this clearly results from the references 
~ to Sophocles and to Philemon shortly following. 
Valerius, then, says (1x, 12, ext. 3): 

The cause of Homer’s death too is said to have been 
an uncommon one. Having landed at the island of 
Ios, certain fishermen asked him a riddle which he was 


unable to read, in consequence of which Homer is believed 
to have died of grief. 


The legend in its more complete form (un- 
known to Petrarch) is derived from the so-called 
Iives compiled from the minor poems falsely 
attributed to Homer. It runs as follows. On 
his way to Thebes, Homer landed at Ios, where 
he saw some young fishermen on the shore 
with their nets. In answer to his question as 


1g2 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


to what they had caught, the young fishermen 
propounded to him this riddle: ‘‘What we 
caught we left, what we caught not we bring.” 
Homer was unable to read this riddle; and 
remembering an oracle which had foretold 
that he would die “through chagrin at his inabil- 
ity to read the riddle of the fishermen,” he 
wrote an epitaph for himself and died of vexa- 
tion and grief on the third day thereafter (cf. 
New International Encycl., and the Brit.). 

If Petrarch questioned the credibility of the 
shorter and simpler version of Valerius, what 
would he have said of this fuller legend, elabo- 
rated as it was with so many undignified frills ? 

10. Val Maxs iixmero, exh 5: 

When Sophocles was already in extreme old age, he 
submitted one of his tragedies in competition at the 
games. Fora long time he was very anxious concern- 
ing (as he thought) the doubtful decision of the judges. 


But his great joy when he was at last unanimously 
declared victor, brought about his death. 


Gio Pliny, Wicd Vilas 80; 

17. Fully to realize Petrarch’s state of mind, 
it is necessary to quote substantial portions 
of his two sources for these statements. The 
first statement is again founded on Val. Max., 
1X, eo ene? 


TO HOMER 193 


The strain of excessive laughter took off Philemon. 
Some figs had been prepared for him, but had been left 
in open view. Seeing a young ass eating them, Philemon 
summoned a boy to drive him away. The boy, how- 
ever, answered the summons leisurely, arriving when 
all the figs had already been devoured. Whereupon 
Philemon said, “‘Since you have been so slow in coming, 
now give the ass some wine.’ And forthwith he began 
to roar at his own witty remark, panting hard until the 
irregular breathing in his aged throat choked him. 


The second version, which Petrarch considers 
‘“more serious and more credible,” is that of 
Apuleius, Florida, xvi: 


For these praiseworthy qualities he (Philemon) was 
for a long time well known as a writer of comedies. It 
happened one day that he was giving a public reading of 
part of a play which he had recently written. When 
he had reached the third act. . . . a sudden rainstorm 
arose .... which compelled the gathering and the 
reading to be postponed. Upon being urgently pressed 
by several, Philemon promised that he would finish the 
reading on the very next day. And so on the following 
day a large throng of very eager men gathered in the 
Bee ater nts. sss But when they had sat waiting longer 
than seemed reasonable, and when Philemon did not 
put in an appearance, several of the more eager were 
sent to summon him, and found him dead in his 
os eae Returning thence they reported to the 
expectant audience that the poet Philemon, whom they 
were so eagerly attending, to hear him complete the read- 


194 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


ing of his latest play, had already, and at his own home, 
brought a real drama to a close. 


In his manuscript of the Florida, Petrarch 
wrote the following marginal note to this pas- 
sage: ‘‘This version of the death of Philemon 
is somewhat nobler than the one related by 
Valerius and, indeed, by myself; for in a cer- 
tain letter of mine I followed both him and the 
current opinion.” P. de Nolhac says that he 
has not been able to find the letter referred to 
by Petrarch (II, p. 102, andn. 4). The present 
epistle to Homer was written in 1360; and it 
may well be that the letter referred to was 
destroyed in the general holocaust of 1359, when 
Petrarch sorted his correspondence into the 
two collections (cf. above, n. 12). Moreover, 
it was just like the careful Petrarch to destroy 
a wrong version when he had once learned the 
true one. 

18. On the general similarity between the 
Odyssey and the Aeneid, Petrarch says (Rer. 
mem., III, 3, ‘‘De sapienter dictis vel factis,”’ 
Pp. 456): 

Homer describes his Ulysses (in whom he means to 
give the type of a wise and brave man) as wandering over 


lands and seas, and in his poem makes him encircle 
nearly the entire world. Our poet has followed this 


TO HOMER 195 


example; he too carries his Aeneas over the different 
countries of the earth. Both poets have done so 
designedly; for wisdom can hardly be gained without 
experience nor can experience be had by one who does 
not see and observe many things. And, finally, it is 
hard to understand how one can see many things if he 
stirs not abroad, but sticks close to one little corner of 
this earth. 


Petrarch enters upon a more general discus- 
sion of the two poets, quoting from Macrobius 


and others, in Rer. mem., II, 2, ‘‘De ingenio,”’ 
Den 413: 

Among the Greeks Homer reigns supreme in the 
intellectual world. Of this dictum not I, but Pliny is 
the author, who ascribes to him a richer, broader, and 
boundless glory [cf. Pliny, N. H., ii, 6; xxv, 2 (5)]. 
It is perfectly clear that with the aid of his divine genius 
Homer has solved a large number of philosophical prob- 
lems in a far better and more decisive fashion than the 
professed philosophers themselves. Macrobius_ with 
great assurance pronounces Homer the fountain-head and 
source of all divine inspiration [Comm. in ‘Somn. Scip., 
ii, 10, 11]. And rightly so. For although tradition has 
it that Homer was physically blind, his soul was so clear 
and luminous that Tullius says of him in the Tusculans 
[v, 114]: ‘‘His verses are as a painting, not poetry. 
What country, what coast, what part of Greece, what 
- manner of battle and array of soldiers, what army, what 
fleet, what motions of men and of beasts have not been 
depicted by him with such skill as to make it possible 


196 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


for us to see what he himself did not see?” But why 
should I discourse on his eloquence, since in the oft-cited 
books of the Saturnalia there is drawn an extensive and 
undecided parallel between our poet and the Greek 
[book v entire]? In the course of a thousand and one 
arguments, now this one is proved superior, now that 
one, and shortly they are shown to be equal [Sat., v, 
12,1]. In consequence these arguments leave the reader 
doubtful of the issue—an uncertainty admirably expressed 
by the satirist in these verses [Juvenal, xi, 180, 181, ed. 
Fried., translated by Gifford, II, p. 161]: 


‘“‘Great Homer shall his deep-ton’d thunder roll, 
And mighty Maro elevate the soul; 
Maro, who, warm’d with all the poet’s fire, 
Disputes the palm of victory with his sire.” 


19. Horace; Saini.85 at. 42, 

20. Macrobius gives us an example of the 
accusation generally made in antiquity against 
VETS i aN .3, 610: 


Continue prithee, said Avienus, to trace all that he 
[Vergil] borrowed from Homer. For what can be sweeter 
than to hear two pre-eminent poets voicing the same 
thoughts? These three things are held to be equally 
impossible: to steal either the lightning of Jove, or the 
club of Hercules, or the verses of Homer, and for the 
reason that, even if it were possible, it would seem unbe- 
coming for any other than Jove to hurl the lightning, 
any other than Hercules to excel in physical strength, 
any other than Homer to sing the verses he sang. Still, 
this author [Vergil] has opportunely embodied in his 


TO HOMER 197 


poem that which the earlier bard had sung, making it 
appear that it is his own. 


The retort referred to is not to be found in 
the Saturnalia (a slip on Petrarch’s part), but 
‘in St. Jerome, who says (Praefatio lib. hebr. 
quaest. in Genesim, Migne, Vol. XXIII, col. 
983): | 

Also the bard of Mantua was criticised by his rivals 
in this way [sc., as Terence by Luscius Lanuvinus]. 
For, having used, unchanged, certain verses of Homer, 
he was called a mere compiler of the earlier poets. To 
which he replied that it was a sign of great power to 
wrest the club from the hands of Hercules—‘“‘magnarum 
esse virium clavam Herculi extorquere de manu.” 


With this compare Frac., III, p. 298. St. 
Jerome himself, however, must have been quot- 
ing from the life by Donatus, and in so doing 
gave a different turn to the reply. Donatus 
says (Vita Verg., XVI, 64, p. 66R) that Vergil 
replied: ‘“‘Why did not they too attempt the 
same thefts? They would discover that it is 
easier to steal the club of Hercules than to pilfer 
a verse from Homer.”’ 

Petrarch’s purpose is to emphasize how 
vigorous a poet Vergil is, and how worthy of 
following in Homer’s footsteps. Hence he 
does not have recourse to the more ancient 


198 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


defense which was ready to his hand in Macro- 
bius, Sat., VI, 3, 1, to the effect that it was the 
earlier Roman poets who stole from Homer, 
and that Vergil borrowed from these earlier 
pilferers belonging to his own race. Such line 
of argument would have made Vergil the second 
thief, but it would not have made his verses 
the best stolen. 
21. Lucan, Pharsalia, ix, 980-86 (tr. by 

Edw. Ridley, p. 299, vss. 1157-66): 

O sacred task of poets, toil supreme, 

Which rescuing all things from allotted fate 

Dost give eternity to mortal men! 

Grudge not the glory, Caesar, of such fame. 

For if the Latian Muse may promise aught, 

Long as the heroes of the Trojan time 

Shall live upon the page of Smyrna’s bard, 

So long shall future races read of thee 

In this my poem; and Pharsalia’s song 

Live unforgotten in the age to come. 


22. Horace, Ars Poetica, 396-401, and Carm., 
iv. 9, VSS. 5, 6. 

23. Theocritus in Ecl., iv, 1, and vi, 1; Hesiod 
in Georg., li, 176. 

24. Statius, Theb., xii, 816, 817. 

25. In Petrarch’s days the Appendix Ver- 
giliana was known as the Ludi Juveniles, and 
included what is now published by Baehrens 


_TO HOMER 199 


in the Poetae latint minores, Vol. II. Judging 
from the statement of the present letter, Petrarch 
was acquainted with these Ludz, or with some 
of them at least. Boccaccio was the first to 
add the eighty Priapea to his codex of the Ludi 
(Sabbadini, p. 32). Sabbadini, p. 24 and n. 5, 
gives proof that Petrarch knew the Culex and 
the Rosae, and on p. 31 adds that he was further- 
more acquainted with some of the Catalecta, 
without giving proof. 

In this letter to Homer, Petrarch states that 
the former’s name is mentioned in the Ludz. 
The total number of references to Homer in 
the Appendix Vergiliana is four: Curis, 65; 
in the epigram closing the Catalecta, vs. 2; 
Priapea, 68, 4, and 80, 5. In the Rendicontt 
del R. Ist. Lomb. (1906, p. 386), Sabbadini 
remarks at this point: ‘‘A quali e a quanti dei 
tre componimenti alludesse il Petrarca, non ci 
é dato indovinare, ma ciascuno dei tre era a 
quei tempi una cospicua novita.”’ Personally 
we should be inclined to favor the Ciris and the 
Catalecta, and, indeed, to give the latter reference 
in support of the statement of Sabbadini on 
p- 31. But until further proof is found, all 
discussion on this point is merely idle specula- 
tion. 


200 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


26: Donatus, in speaking of Vergil, says 
(p. 65R): ‘‘Vergil never lacked detractors; 
and no wonder: even Homer had his.” 

27. This, of course, is a reference to some 
statement occurring in the pseudo-Homer letter 
which Petrarch had received. 

28.0 9ee above, N22. 

29. Petrarch’s words are: ‘“‘cum verissime 
dicat hebraeus Sapiens quod ‘stultorum infint- 
tus est numerus’” (III, p. 301). From the 
manner of Petrarch’s quoting, and from the 
fact that Fracassetti italicizes the words in 
single quotation marks, it would be inferred that 
the citation is from the Bible. But an exhaust- 
ive search through the Concordances of both 
Cruden and Young has failed to reveal such a 
passage, though sentiments on the subject of 
folly and fools are quite numerous. It may be, 
of course, that Petrarch epitomized, or rather 
formulated a deduction of his own from the 
books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. 

30. Concerning the nationality of Leonzio 
Pilato consult what has been said above in 
Dasepanes, 

31. It is generally agreed that of the three 
scholars said to be at Florence, Boccaccio must 
be one. The other two cannot be identified 


TO HOMER 201 


with certainty, but they are to be chosen from 
among Nelli, Salutati, and Bruni; of no one of 
whom, however, do we know as a fact that he 
was acquainted with Greek. It is for this rea- 
son that Tedaldo della Casa, who studied Greek 
under Leonzio Pilato, has, with greater proba- 
bility, been suggested as one of the three Floren- 
tines (Baldelli). Petrarch himself has been 
thought of by De Sade as the fourth, but (it 
seems) on insufficient grounds. The fifth 
Florentine is without doubt Zanobi de Strada, 
who in 1359 was appointed apostolic secretary 
by Innocent VI, and who in consequence aban- 
doned Naples and Italy for Avignon, the 
Babylon across the Alps. 

The scholar at Bologna, too, can be named: 
Pietro di Muglio or de Muglo (cf. n. 13). The 
Veronese humanists are Guglielmo da Pastrengo 
and Rinaldo da Villafranca. The Mantuan, 
according to De Sade and Tiraboschi, is Andrea 
(surnamed) Mantovano; and the one from 
Perugia, finally, has been variously identified 
with Paolo Perugino (Baldelli) and Muzio da 
Perugia (De Sade and Tiraboschi). Fracas- 
setti (Vol. 5, p. 197) has omitted all mention 
of the humanist at Sulmona, who very probably 
is to be identified with Marco Barbato da Sul- 


202 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


mona. (Consult Frac., loc. cit., who gives some 
cross-references to his own notes; and Voigt.) 

395 i, on. iy 

33. This note of despair was wrung from 
Petrarch by his dismay at the existent state of 
affairs and by his own high ideals of scholarship. 
That it eventually proved to be an utterly false 
prophecy was due mainly to the vigorous im- 
pulse which he himself gave to the cause of 
humanism. 

Atte er St 

35. The famous words from the epitaph of 
Ennius (Cic., Tusc., 1, 34), which Petrarch has 
here adapted to his purpose by the insertion of 
the bracketed words, “‘(Nam) volito vivus 
(docta) per ora virum” (Frac., III, p. 303). 

36. Petrarch had owned a Greek Homer as 
early as 1354, when his friend Niccolé Sigero 
sent him a copy from Constantinople (cf. n. 3, 
par. 2). Fam., XVIII, 2, describes Petrarch’s 
joy at its reception, and also his sorrow at not 
being able to understand a word of it, which 
clearly proves that the first modern scholar had 
not made much progress after a summer’s 
instruction from the first teacher of Greek in 
the western world (seen.1). In Latin, Petrarch 
had the Periochae which are attributed to 


TO HOMER 203 


Ausonius and the Homerus Latinus or Pindarus 
Thebanus (for which see n. 5). 

37. Fond hopes was Petrarch nourishing, 
and vain! We must remember that when 
Leonzio Pilato finished his translation of Homer 
in 1363, there was but one copy of it, and that 
that copy remained at Florence. We can well 
imagine Petrarch’s eagerness to peruse it. His 
first inquiry 1s made in Seniles, III, 6 (of March 
1, 1365), by which letter he requests that some 
portion at least of the Odyssey be forwarded 
to him, continuing that he is quite content to 
wait for the rest. From Seniles V, 1 (Padua, 
December 14, 1365, Koerting, Bocc., p. 263, 
n. 2), we learn that when Boccaccio received 
this pressing note, the Ziad had already been 
transcribed; and so he hastened to make with 
his own hand a transcription of that passage 
in the Odyssey describing the descent of Ulysses 
to Hades. In the same letter Petrarch expresses 
satisfaction at hearing that this is at last on its 
way to him. Through some mishap, however, 
the precious package had not yet reached its 
destination at Venice by the 25th or 27th of 
January, 1367 (Sen., VI, 1; Koerting, of. cit.; 
P. de Nolhac, II, p. 165). The joy of Petrarch, 
when he at last grasped the translation of Homer 


204 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


with his own hands and beheld it among the 
books on his own shelves, is simply expressed 
in the closing words of Seniles VI, 2 (undated, 
but later than VI, 1). To conclude, the trans- 
lation, which was begun by Leonzio in the latter 
half of 1360 (the date of Fam., XXIV, 12), did 
not reach him who was the most eager for it 
till seven years later. 


A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 


BAEUMKER, KLEMENS. Quibus antiquis auctoribus 
Petrarca in conscribendis rerum memorabilium libris 
usus sit. Muenster, 1882. 

BURCKHARDT, JAcoB. The Civilisation of the Renais- 
sance in Italy. Translated by S. G. C. Middlemore. 
London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., 1898. 

BuTLerR, H. E. Sexti Properti opera omnia. With 
a commentary. London: Archibald Constable & 
Co., 1905. 

CoMPARETTI, Domenico. Vergil in the Middle Ages. 
Translated by E. F. M. Benecke. London; Swan 
Sonnenschein & Co., 1895. 

Conincton, JoHn. The Aeneid of Virgil. Trans- 
lated into English Verse. toth ed. Longmans, 
Green and Co., 1900. 

DASSAMINIATO, GIOVANNI. De’ rimedii dell’? una e 
dell’ altra fortuna, volgarizzati nel buon secolo della 
lingua. Published by Casimiro Stolfi at Bologna, 
presso Gaetano Romagnoli, 1867. 2 vols. (In 
Collezione di opere inedite o rare det primi tre secolt 
della lingua, Vols. XVII and XVIII.) 

DEVELAY, Victor. A translation of the letters to Cicero, 
in Bulletin du bibliophile et du bibliothécaire (1881), 
pp. 213-19; of the letter to Seneca, zbid., pp. 289- 
95; to Varro, zbid., pp. 385-88; to Quintilian, Livy, 
Pollio, and Horace, zbid., pp. 481-93. 


205 


206 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


FRACASSETTI, GIUSEPPE. Francisci Petrarcae epistolae 
de rebus familiaribus et variae .... studio et 
cura Tosephi Fracassetti. Florentiae, typis Felicts 
Le Monnier. 3 vols., 1859-63. 

Lettere di Francesco Petrarca delle cose famal- 

tari libri ventiquattro, lettere varie libro unico. Vol- 

garizzate e dichiarate con note da G. F. Firenze, 

Successori Le Monnier, 1892. 5 vols. 

Lettere senili di Francesco Petrarca. Vol- 
garizzate e dichiarate con note da G. F. Firenze, 
Successori Le Monnier, 1892, 2 vols. (In Bzblio- 
teca Nazionale Economica.) 

GIBBON, Epwarp. The History of the Decline and 
Fall of the Roman Empire. Edited by J. B. Bury. 
London: Methuen & Co., 1g00. 7 vols. 

GIFFORD, Wm. The Satires of D. J. Juvenal, Phila- 
delphia, 1803. 

GREGOROVIUS, FERDINAND. History of the City of 
Rome in the Middle Ages. ‘Translated by Annie 
Hamilton. London: George Bell & Sons. 

Hatiam, Henry. View of the State of Europe during 
the Middle Ages. gth ed. London: John Murray, 
1846. 

Harris, Evra IsaBeL. The Tragedies of Seneca. 
Oxford, 1904. 

KOERTING, GusTAV. Geschichte der Litteratur Italiens 
im Zeitalter der Renaissance. Vol. I, ‘‘Petrarca’s 
Leben und Werke,” Leipzig, 1878; Vol. II, ‘‘Boc- 
caccio’s Leben und Werke,” Leipzig, 1880. 

LopcE, R. The Close of the Middle Ages, 1273-1494. 
London: Rivingtons, 1902. 

MicneE, J. P. Patrologiae cursus completus. Paris. 


A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 207 


Moore, CH. R. The Elegies of Propertius. London: 
Rivingtons, 1870. 

NeETTLESHIP,H. Ancient Lives of Vergil. Oxford, 1879. 

Vergil. In ‘“‘Classical Writers.” New York, 
D. Appleton & Co., 1880. 

NOLHAC, PIERRE DE. Pétrarque et Vhumanisme. In 
Bibliotheque littéraire de la renaissance, Nouvelle 
Série. 2 vols. Paris: Honoré Champion, 1907. 


PETRARCH, F. Opera quae extant omnia... . haec 
quidem omnia nunc tterum.... repurgata.... 
et in tomos quator distincta... . Basileae, per 


Sebastianum Henricpetrt. 1581, folio, 4 vols. in 

one, and paged continuously. 

De Remediis utriusque fortunae libri duo, eius- 
dem De contemptu mundi colloquiorum liber quem 
secretum suum tnscripsit. Roterodami, ex officina 
Arnoldi Leers, 1649. 

REIFFERSCHEID, AuGcustus. C. Suetont Tranquilli 
reliquiae. Lipsiae: Teubner, 1860. 

RipLEY, Epw. The Pharsalia of Lucan, Translated 
into Blank Verse. Longmans, Green & Co., 1896. 

ROBINSON, JAS. H., AND ROLFE, HENRY W. Petrarch, 
the First Modern Scholar and Man of Letters. Put- 
nam’s Sons, 1808. 

SABBADINI, Remicio. Le Scoperte det codici latint 
é>grect ne. secolt XIV e+XV. Firenze: G:C: 
Sansoni, 1905. 

“Tl primo nucleo della biblioteca del Petrarca,”’ 

Rendiconti del R. tstituto lombardo (1906), pp. 

369-88. 

“Quali biografie vergiliane fossero note al 

Petrarca,” ibid., pp. 193-98. 


208 PETRARCH’S LETTERS 


SABBADINI, Remicio. ‘‘La Vergilii vita di Donato,” 
Studi itahani di filologia classica, Vol. V, pp. 
384-88. 

SERVIL Grammatici qui feruntur in Vergilit carmina 
commentarit. Recensuerunt GEORGIUS THILO ef 
HERMANNUS HAGEN. 3 vols. ‘Teubner. 

SYMONDS, JOHN ADDINGTON. Renaissance in Italy. 

The article on “Petrarch” in the Encyel. 
Brit. (new Werner ed.). 

Voict,-Grorc. Die Waéiederbelebung des classischen 
Alterthums, oder das erste Jahrhundert des Human- 
ismus. 2 vols., 3d ed., by Georg Reimer, Berlin, 


1893. 


“Die Briefsammlungen Petrarcas und der 
venetianische Staatskanzler Benintendi, Abh. d. 
TIT CW de RAARA Gd: Wiss XVIOBOG AeA bin 


pp. 1-101. Muenchen, 1883. 


hie 
Sy tO, 
aul 
’ 
id 
‘ 


1 J ° i sit * 


4) 


Rerwged ss ctepee sd f We a 


eatetetes 


UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA 


CEU NEA 


3 0112 045879233 


. 
, 
5 


, 
» 


+ ee 4), 


